HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.308 E Hopkins.0057.2006.,,
Master Pamt~2{ Resting Queue aslu0fi App~led iiJD7J2-r76
Project J Status pending Approved
Description Issued r®
Final ~~ ~
Submit9ed SUNNY VANN 970A26fi966 Clodc Running Days I Expires 11%02(2007
Owne•::.
Last Name AV VENNRE LLC ~ First Name PO BOk 6769 ~~~
A6PEfJ CO 61612
PFwne (970j 9201776
r Owner Is Applicant]
Last Name JV! 4ENPJRE LLC ~ F¢st Name ~ PO BOX 6764
Phone (9N)920-1776 Cust# 27291 ®....."" ASPEN 0081612
~J I
Last Nave ~~ First Name
Phone
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of
DEVELOPMENT APP~VAL
of 2009. The Applic5nt receivetl approval of
livision to construct a mixatl use builtling at
ist HopYv'ns Avenue.
Cher Intormafion contact Sara Atlams, at the
Amon CnmmuniN Oevelooment OeDi. 13D
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
of the
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
Publishetl In the Aspen Times Weekly on Au ust
&Ciry Di ASpen e It Order, hereinafrer "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070,
2, 2DOZ ~s39s,a~ ~ders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen
-mmt~t Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to
the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall
also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall
expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building
permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension,
reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After
Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding
any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to
any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order.
This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific
development plan as described below.
J. W. Venture, LLC, P.O. Box 8769 Aspen CO 81611 970/925-6553
Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number
308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots M and N Bloek 80 Citv and Townsite of Aspen CO
Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property
Written Description of the Site
Land Use Approval(s) Received
Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan
Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions)
Aueust 9, 2007
Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.)
Aueust 9, 2010
Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration
and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code.)
Issued ~is~9th day of August, 2007, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director.
Chris Bandon, Community Development Director
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR
308 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION
THIS SUBD�ISION AGREEMENT ( "Subdivision Agreement ") is made and
entered into this /7 day ofC 7 a'%c 't , 2007, by and between THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and
J.W. Ventures, LLC; a Colorado limited liability company (hereinafter collectively
referred to as "Owner "),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and
recordation a Subdivision Plat of a parcel of land situated within the City of Aspen,
Colorado and more particularly described as Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado, said property being hereafter designated and known as the "308 East
Hopkins Avenue Subdivision "; and
WHEREAS, City has fully considered the Subdivision Plat, the proposed
development and improvement of the lands therein, and the effects of the proposed
development and improvement of said lands on adjoining or neighboring properties and
property owners; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Ordinance No. 27 (Series of 2007) adopted
by the Aspen City Council on July 9, 2007, the City has imposed certain conditions and
requirements in connection with its approval of the 308 East Hopkins Avenue
Subdivision and its execution and recordation of the Subdivision Plat, such matters being
necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, Owner is willing to acknowledge, accept, abide by and faithfully
perform the conditions and requirements imposed by the City in approving the 308 East
Hopkins Avenue Subdivision and the Subdivision Plat; and
WHEREAS, contemporaneously with the execution and recording of this
Subdivision Agreement, and pursuant to Section 26.480.070.A of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City and Owner have executed and recorded on /Set/SS/1,e 8 , 2007 the
Subdivision Plat in Plat Book c tt Page S as Reception No. 5/3 Z / in
the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein contained, the approval, execution and acceptance of the Subdivision
Plat, and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
RECEPTION #: 543922, 11(08/2007 at
09:42:19 AM,
1 OF 12, R $61.00 Doc Code SUB AGREE
1 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
ARTICLE I
ZONING AND REGULATORY APPROVALS
1.1 Pursuant to Resolution No. 18 (Series of 2006), adopted on July 12, 2006,
the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ( "HPC ") approved with conditions,
conceptual major development, viewplane review, pedestrian amenity space, demolition
and commercial design review for the property located at 308 East Hopkins Avenue
Avenue and legally described in the first Whereas clause hereof.
1.2 Pursuant to Resolution No. 18 (Series of 2007), adopted on April 17,
2007, the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission ( "P &Z ") approved with
conditions, two growth management reviews, and recommended that the City Council
approve with conditions, the 308 East Hopkins Avenue Subdivision and
condominiumization thereof to construct and subdivide the improvements into one (1)
commercial space, two (2) free market residential units and two (3) deed restricted
Category 3 affordable housing units.
1.3 Pursuant to Resolution No. 19 (Series of 2007), adopted on May 9, 2007,
the HPC approved with conditions final major development within a historic district.
1.4 Pursuant to Ordinance No. 27 (Series of 2007) adopted on July 9, 2007
and recorded as Reception No. 540761, the Aspen City Council approved the 308 East
Hopkins Avenue Subdivision, with conditions, requiring employees of the commercial
space located at 308 East Hopkins Avenue have first right of refusal before the units are
rented to non - employees of the commercial space and setting the affordable housing units
at Category 3, approved the eventual condominiumization of the project to define the
separate ownerships therein by the recording of a condominium map in compliance with
the current (at the time of condominium map submission) requirements of the
Community Development Engineer.
In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of the above - described
Ordinances and/or Resolutions and the provisions of this Subdivision Agreement, the
provisions of this Subdivision Agreement shall control.
ARTICLE II
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS
2.1 Development Program. The building will be a mixed -use building
containing one (1) commercial space (the "commercial unit "), two (2) free market
dwelling units (the "Free Market Units "), three (3) affordable housing units (the "AH
Units ") and a subgrade storage space. The building shall comply with the use mix and
dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district in Section
26.710.040 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Compliance with these requirements
will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit
2
submittal. The subgrade storage space shall remain uninhabitable and unimproved
storage facilities. If these areas are remodeled in the future, the Owner shall go through
the appropriate land use reviews in place at the time of application.
2.2 Affordable Housing Mitigation. The AH Units shall comply with the
requirements of the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines. The AH Units
shall be deed restricted as Category 3 rentals and if the AH Units become "for sale" that
or those units offered will be listed with the Housing Office at Category 3 maximum
sales price. Further, the AH units shall become sale units (as to that or those out of
compliance) at such time as the APCHA deems the AH Units to be out of compliance
with the rental occupancy requirements set forth in the APCHA Guidelines for a period
of more than one (1) year from the date on which the APCHA gives the record owner of
the affected AH unit(s) written notice of such noncompliance and such non - compliance
has not been cured during said one -year period.
Employees of the commercial space shall have right of first refusal before the AH
Units are rented to non - employees of the commercial space
So long as the AH units are rental units, they shall be owned by the Owner.
Unless a different arrangement is worked out with the City, and only to the extent
required to comply with applicable Colorado law, a one -tenth of one percent interest in
each of the AH units will be conveyed to APCHA at the time the remaining ownership
interest is deeded to the Association. Said one -tenth of one percent interest is hereinafter
referred to as the "APCHA Interest ". The conveyance of the APCHA Interest shall be
expressly subject to the understanding and agreement that (a) ownership of the APCHA
Interest only gives the APCHA the right to enforce the deed restrictions on the AH unit,
and does not give the APCHA any authority or rights that are not specifically set forth in
the deed restriction, (b) in all other respects, the APCHA shall be deemed to have no
ownership rights or responsibilities in connection with the AH units, and the record
owner of the remaining interest in the units shall have full right and authority to lease,
encumber, or otherwise deal with the AH units as if such owner held a 100 percent
interest therein, (c) APCHA shall have no liability to third persons arising solely out of its
ownership of the APCHA Interest, and the party conveying the APCHA Interest shall
indemnify APCHA from and against any losses or liabilities arising solely out of its
ownership of the APCHA Interest, (d) the APCHA Interest will be conveyed to the
Association or other then - current owner of the AH unit if and when the Colorado
legislature or a court of competent jurisdiction legalizes the imposition of rent restrictions
on affordable housing units, and (e) the APCHA Interest will be conveyed to the buyer of
the AH unit if it is converted to a sale unit and sold by the Association to a qualified third
party.
In the event the project is sold by Owner to a third party before the project is
condominiumized, the Owner shall have the right to assign the foregoing deed restriction
and APCHA Interest obligations to the third party buyer.
2.3 Off - Street Parking. There shall be three parking spaces provided per the
3
plans presented at P &Z, HPC and City Council. Two (2) space shall be provided for the
Free Market Units and one (1) space shall be provided for the AH Units.
2.4 Building Permit Application. The building permit application for the
project shall include the following:
(a) Copies of HPC Resolutions No. 18 (Series of 2006) and No. 19 of
2007, P &Z Resolution No. 18 (Series of 2007) and of City Council Ordinance No.
27 (Series of 2007).
(b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the
building permit set.
(c) A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineering Department.
(d) Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass,
irrigation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior
to building permit submittal.
(e) An excavation - stabilization plan, construction management plan
(CMP), and drainage and soils report pursuant to the Building Department's
requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling
routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for
review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent.
The CMP shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and
maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be identified in the plan,
and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No
stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be
addressed.
(f) A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design.
(g) Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet the adopted
Building Code requirements.
(h) A right of way Landscape Plan for review by Parks and HPC.
2.5 Trash /Utility Service Area. The trash containers shall be wildlife proof
and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security.
2.6 Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter The sidewalks, curb and gutter shall be
upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards, ADA requirements achieve proper
drainage as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement may extend beyond property
lines to achieve proper drainage. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Owner shall
provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be
4
made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development.
2.7 Storm Water System Design. The storm water system design shall be
completed according to City of Aspen Engineering Department Standards and be
approved by the City Engineer. System Development fee condition apply.
2.8 Water Department Requirements. Owner shall comply with the City of
Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title
8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as
required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Each of the units within the building
shall have individual water meters.
2.9 Sanitation District Requirements.
(a) Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which
are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to
assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not
connected to the sanitary sewer system.
(b) On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
(c) Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food
processing establishments; locations of food processing shall be identified prior to
building permit; even though the commercial space will be tenant finished, interceptors
will be required at the time of building permit submittal if food processing establishments
are anticipated for this project.
(d) Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and
vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shaft drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors.
(e) Oil service lines must be evacuated and abandoned at the main
sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development
may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building.
Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a
single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or rights
of way.
(f) Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and
hard landscaping may impact public rights of way or easements to be dedicated to the
district.
(g) All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
(h) Any glycol heating and snow melt system must be designated to
5
prohibit the discharge of glycol into any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer
system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
(i) Soil nails are not allowed in the public right of way above ACSD
sewer lines.
0) Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and
proposed flow calculations.
2.10 Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the
City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor
Lighting.
2.11 Landscaping.
(a) Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, a tree
removal permit shall be approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department. To the extent
that mitigation is required for any removals, the required mitigation shall be provided to
the satisfaction of the Parks Department via payment of cash -in -lieu of plantings, the
planting of street trees, or a combination of these methods.
(b) Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation
next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional
tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team.
(c) Planting in the public right of way will be subject to Landscaping
in the ROW requirements. Improvements to the right of way should include new grass,
irrigation and the Owner shall work with the Parks Department in order to design an
appropriate trench box for the new tree plantings. Plans for the tree plantings should be
completed and conceptually approved prior to building permit submittal.
2.12 Park Development Impact Fee. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.610, Park Development Impact Fees, the Owner shall pay a park development impact
fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee
schedule in Land Use Code Section 26.610.090, Fee Schedule.
2.13 Pedestrian Amenity Cash -in -Lieu Fee. Pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity, Owner shall pay a cash -in -lieu fee for
pedestrian amenity in the amount equal to seventeen (17 %) percent of the lot area, as the
Owner is providing eight (8 %) percent on site, prior to building permit issuance. The fee
is assessed based on the following calculation:
Lot area = 6,032 square feet
17% of Lot area = 1,025.44 square feet
Payment = $50 x 1025.44 square feet
Pedestrian Amenity Cash -in -Lieu = $51,272.00
6
2.14 School Lands Dedication Fee. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.630, School lands dedication, Owner shall pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication prior to
building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall
calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at
the time of building permit submittal. Owner shall provide the market value of the land
including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site.
2.15 Reconstruction Credits Deadline Extension. The one (1) year
deadline for the reconstruction of existing commercial net leasable credits, pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.040.070(A), is hereby extended to two (2) years to
accommodate the projects' additional approval requirements.
2.16 HPC Conditions of Approval.
(a) The Owner will restudy the material and style of the second floor
balcony /railing on the South Elevation, for review and approval by staff and monitor.
(b) The first floor fence closing the outdoor seating will be approved
by staff and monitor.
(c) Approval for the fixed glass windows along the west elevation is
contingent on an approval by the Building Department. Staff and monitor will review
and approve any changes to the approved plans.
(d) Information on all venting locations and meters not described in
the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor
when the information is available.
(e) There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as
approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full
board.
ARTICLE III
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS
Under Development Order of the City of Aspen Community Development
Department with an effective date of August 9, 2007 (the "Development Order "), the
right to undertake and complete the development and use of the 308 East Hopkins
Avenue Subdivision pursuant to the terms and conditions of the site specific development
plan for the property is vested until August 9, 2010, and shall not be altered, impaired,
diminished or delayed by any subsequent zoning or land use action that is prohibited by
Section 24 -68- 1050) of the Colorado Revised Statutes. In accordance with the
requirements of CRS Section 24- 68- 103(b), a properly noticed public hearing concerning
the establishment of such vested rights for the property was conducted on July 9, 2007.
As authorized by CRS Section 24- 68- 102(4)(a), the City and Owner agree that the site
specific development plan for the 308 East Hopkins Avenue Subdivision consists of and
7
6
includes, but is not limited to, the number, permitted size, and configuration of the free
market residential units, the AH Units, the parking spaces, and the other spaces and areas
in the project, and all other matters set forth in the Regulatory Approvals identified in
Article I above, the Subdivision Plat, this Subdivision Agreement, and all other
documents and plans recorded concurrently therewith. For purposes of this Article III,
this Subdivision Agreement shall be considered a "development agreement" as that term
is used in CRS Section 24- 68- 104(2).
ARTICLE IV
FINANCIAL GUARANTEES
4.1 Landscape Guarantee. In order to ensure implementation and
maintenance of the landscape plan, the City may require the Owner to provide a
guarantee for no less than one hundred twenty -five (125) percent of the current estimated
cost of the landscaping improvements in the approved landscape plan, as estimated by the
City Engineer, to ensure the installation of all landscaping shown and the continued
maintenance and replacement of the landscaping for a period of two (2) years after
installation. The guarantee shall be in the form of a cash escrow with the city, or a bank
or savings and loan association, or an irrevocable sight draft or letter of commitment
from a financially responsible lender and shall give the city the unconditional right upon
demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements or pay any
outstanding bills, or to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay
for any improvements or pay for any improvement or pay any outstanding bills for work
done thereon by any party.
The amount guaranteed shall be based on the amount of the cost of constructing
said improvements as estimated at the time of building permit issuance. Said guarantee
shall be provided to and be approved the Parks and Engineering Departments prior to the
application for a building permit.
As portions of the landscaping improvements are completed, the City Engineer
shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the
agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except that ten (10) percent
shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved, and an
additional twenty -five (25) percent, which shall be retained until the improvements have
been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years.
4.2 Public Facilities Guarantee. In order to ensure installation of necessary
public facilities planned to accommodate the subdivision, the City shall require the
Owner to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred (100) percent of the current
estimated cost of such public improvements, as estimated by the City Engineer. The
guarantee shall be in the form specified in Section 26.480.050(c) and may be drawn upon
by the City as specified therein.
The amount guaranteed shall be based the amount of the cost of constructing said
8
{
y Y
improvements as estimated at the time of building permit issuance. Said guarantee shall
be provided to and approved by the Engineering Department prior to the application for a
building permit.
As portions of the public facilities improvements are completed, the City
Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorized the
release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except ten (10)
percent which shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and
approved.
4.3. Time of Guarantee Deposits. All guarantees shall be delivered to the
City at the time of issuance of a building permit for the project in form satisfactory to the
City.
ARTICLE V
NON - COMPLIANCE AND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS OR EXTENSIONS
In the event that the City Council determines that Owner is not acting in
substantial compliance with the terms of this Subdivision Agreement, the City Council
shall notify Owner in writing specifying the alleged non- compliance and asking that
Owner remedy the alleged non - compliance within such reasonable time as the City
Council may determine, but not less than 30 days. If the City Council determines that
Owner has not complied within such time, the City Council may issue and serve upon
Owner a written order specifying the alleged non - compliance and requiring Owner to
remedy the same within thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the receipt of such
order, Owner may file with the City Council either a notice advising the City Council that
it is in compliance or a written petition requesting a hearing to determine any one or both
of the following matters:
(a) Whether the alleged non - compliance exists or did exist, or
(b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment to this
Subdivision Agreement should be granted with respect to any such non-
compliance which is determined to exist.
Upon the receipt of such petition, the City Council shall promptly schedule a
hearing to consider the matters set forth in the order of non - compliance and in the
petition. The hearing shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures
normally established by the City Council for other hearings. If the City Council
determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a non - compliance exists which has
not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be appropriate, including the
imposition of daily fines until such non - compliance has been remedied, the withholding
of permits and /or certificates of occupancy, as applicable; provided, however, no order
shall terminate any land use approval. The City Council may also grant such variances,
9
extensions of time or amendments to this Subdivision Agreement as it may deem
appropriate under the circumstances.
The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the City Council shall not
unreasonably refuse to extend the time periods for performance hereunder if Owner
demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay(s) which
necessitate said extension(s) result from acts of God or other events beyond the
reasonable control of Owner, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely
manner.
ARTICLE VI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.1 The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
Owner and City and their respective successors and assigns.
6.2 This Subdivision Agreement shall be subject to and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
6.3 If any provision of this Subdivision Agreement or any paragraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section or the application thereof in any circumstance
is invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this
Subdivision Agreement, and the application of any such provision, paragraph, sentence,
clause, phrase, word, or section in any other circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
6.4 This Subdivision Agreement and any Exhibits attached hereto contain the
entire understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the transactions
contemplated hereunder. Owner, its successors or assigns, may, on its own initiative,
petition the City Council for an amendment to this Subdivision Agreement or for an
extension of one or more of the time periods required for performance hereunder. The
City Council shall not unreasonably deny such petition for amendment or extension after
considering all appropriate circumstances. Any such amendments or extensions of time
shall only become effective upon the execution by all parties hereto that are affected by
the proposed amendment.
6.5 Numerical and title headings contained in this Subdivision Agreement are
for convenience only, and shall not be deemed determinative of the substance contained
herein. As used herein, where the context requires, the use of the singular shall include
the plural and the use of any gender shall include all genders.
6.6 Upon execution of this Subdivision Agreement by all parties hereto, City
agrees to approve and execute the Subdivision Plat and to accept the same for recordation
in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment of the
recordation fees by Owner.
10
. F
6.7 Notices to be given to the parties to this Subdivision Agreement shall be
considered to be given if hand delivered or if deposited in the United States Mail to the
parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below, or such other
addresses as may be substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors or
assigns:
CITY: City of Aspen
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
OWNER: c/o John R. Provine
P.O. Box 8769
Aspen, CO 81612
With Copy to: Leonard M. Oates, Esq.
Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz & Kelly, P.C.
533 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
6.8 This Subdivision Agreement may be executed in counterparts, in which
case all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument which is
binding on all of the parties thereto, notwithstanding that all of the parties are not
signatory to the original or the same counterpart. Facsimile signatures shall be treated as
original signatures hereon.
6.9 The terms, conditions, provisions and obligations herein contained shall be
deemed covenants that run with and burden the Hyman Apartments Condominiums
Subdivision and any and all owners thereof or interests therein, their respective
successors, grantees or assigns, and further shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically
enforceable by or against the parties hereto, their respective heirs, personal
representatives, successors, grantees or assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals
as of the day and year first above written.
CITY: City of Aspen, Colorado, a Colorado
municipal corporation
By: ( C 7( :i
`f�
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Attes
Kathryn S. Ko , City Clerk
11
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_. E _� `%.71fi1 City Attorney
t 674 , City Attorney
OWNER: JW VENTURES, LLC
By 'II rte// �----'`
John R. Provine, Member
STATE OF COLORADO )
)
a
, t ti °,, Y OF PITKIN )
S -• ,.. I ^ ttA
v $?` "-
' d b t
oregoing instrument was acknowledged me this �V day of
~ : 1 /0 9' V 2007, by Michael C. Ireland as Mayor and Kathryn S. Koch as City
4 : Clerk ofth j ity of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation.
\,„ c , ` ` tness my hand and official seal.
N1/4-„,,,, r
,, y commission expires: 0 1 2 ‘7I? -C C 9 / {� "� `�
MyCcmm�sie: •zsC3'2w2009 1(1/1/1\
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) �}�
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / 7 / day of
O --k-O, p 2006, by John R. Provine, as a Member of JW Ventures, LLC.
Witness my hand and official deal. . — RY PVe l
1 My commission expires: // /,� f - .SP,.••• imp
1f
Notary "blip or S 1 t
7 • • f
,,11N ��OF C� _ =
12
ORDINANCE NO. 27
(SERIES OF 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
WITH CONDITIONS, SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION FOR, 308
E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M AND N, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-073-29-007.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from J. W. Venture, LLC represented by Vann Associates, LLC, requesting approval of
Subdivision and Condominiumization to construct a mixed -use building consisting of
2,745 square feet of commercial space, 2 free - market residential units and 3 affordable
housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 12, 2006, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006, by a four to one
vote (4 — 1), approving Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Viewplane Exemption,
Pedestrian Amenity Space, and Conceptual development within a Historic District; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission found that the 3 foot 3 inch
intrusion into the Hotel Jerome Viewplane was insignificant and granted exemption; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2007, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved with conditions Resolution No. 19, Series of 2007,
by a vote of four to zero (4 — 0), approving Final development within a Historic District;
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 17, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.18, Series of 2007, by a five to one (5 -1)
vote, approving two Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed -use
building that includes commercial space, free market and affordable housing,
recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision to
construct a mixed -use building consisting of two (2) free - market residential unit and
2,745 square feet of commercial space; and,
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2007, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 27,
Series 2007, on Second Reading by a four to zero (4 - 0) vote, approving with conditions the
Subdivision and Condominiumization of 308 E. Hopkins Ave, Lots M and N, Block 80,
City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, during the July 9, 2007 public hearing, the Aspen City Council
added a condition of approval to Ordinance No. 27 Series of 2007 stating that the three
affordable housing units are deed restricted Category 3 rental units to be used for the
Ordinance No. 27 RECEPTION #: 540761, 08/08/2007 at
Series 2007 11:41:32 AM,
Page 1 1 OF 11, R $56.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
employees of the commercial space located at 308 East Hopkins Avenue, who will have
right of first refusal before the units are rented to non - employees; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal,
with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves a Subdivision and
Condominiumization allowing J. W. Venture, LLC, to construct a mixed -use building
consisting of one (1) commercial space, two (2) free market residential units and three (3)
deed restricted affordable housing units on the property located at 308 E. Hopkins Ave,
Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO.
Section 2: Plat and Agreement
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of' such
approval. The Subdivision Agreement shall also include a commitment to satisfy all
conditions of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 18, Series of 2007 as
well as all conditions of this Ordinance. A final Condominium Plat shall be approved and
signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of
construction and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Section 3: Building Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance, HPC Resolutions and P &Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly
y
the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit
submittal.
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 2
e. An excavation - stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and
drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements.
The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The
construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will
be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be
identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during
construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm
run off must be addressed.
f. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
permit submittal plan.
g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted Building Code
requirements.
h. An approved Landscape Plan in the Right of Way for review by Parks and HPC.
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The building as presented complies with the dimensional requirements of the
Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Compliance with these requirements will be
verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal.
The subgrade storage areas shall remain uninhabitable and unimproved storage facilities.
If these areas are remodeled in the future, the applicant shall go through the appropriate
land use reviews in place at the time of application.
Section 5: Affordable Housing
The affordable housing units shall be deed restricted as Category 3 rentals with the
capability of converting into ownership units if the owners would request this change or
APCHA deems the units out of compliance for a period of more than one year.
Employees of the commercial space located at 308 East Hopkins Avenue will have the
right of first refusal before the affordable housing units are rented to non - employees. If
the units become "for sale" due to the aforementioned conditions, they will be listed with
the Housing Office at Category 3 maximum sales prices.
Section 6: Trash/Utility Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness
regulations pertaining to size and security.
Section 7: Sidewalks. Curb. and Gutter
The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer' s standards and ADA
requirements. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide
sidewalk, curb and gutter plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such
improvements shall be made prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the
units within the development.
Section 8: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 3
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements
a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the
District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear
water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
b. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
c. Oil and Grease intercentors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing
establishment; Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building
permit; even though the commercial space will be tenant- finished, interceptors will be
required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project.
d. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywelis. Elevator shaft
drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors.
e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require
installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared
service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a
single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or
right of ways.
f. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping
may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
h. Any glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge
of' glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol
storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
i. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines.
j. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to subnfit existing and proposed flow
calculations.
Section 10: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 11: Landscaping
a. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, a tree removal permit will
need to be approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department. To the extent that
mitigation is required for any removals, the required mitigation will be provided to
the satisfaction of the Parks Department via payment of cash -in -lieu of plantings, the
planting of street trees, or a combination of these methods.
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 4
w
b. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under
the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service
company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees
located on adjacent properties.
c. Planting in the Public Right -Of —Way (ROW) will be subject to Landscaping in the
ROW requirements. Improvements to the ROW should include new grass, irrigation
and the applicant shall work with the Parks Department in order to design an
appropriate trench box for the new tree plantings. Plans for the tree plantings should
be completed and conceptually approved prior to building permit submittal.
Section 12: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a park
development impact fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated
according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code Section 26.610.09 0, Fee Schedule.
Section 13: Pedestrian Amenity Cash -in -Lieu Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity, the Applicant shall
pay a cash -in -lieu fee for pedestrian amenity in the amount equal to seventeen (17 %)
percent of the lot area, as the applicant is providing eight percent (8 %) on site, prior to
building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following ng a ulati n quare feet
17% of Lot Area = 1,025.44 square feet
Payment = $50 x 1025.44 square feet
Pedestrian Amenity Cash -in -Lieu = $51,272,
Section 14: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall
pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the
calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit
submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site
improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site.
Section 15: Reconstruction Credits Deadline Extension
The one (1) year deadline for the reconstruction of existing commercial net leasable
credits, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070.A, is hereby extended to two (2)
years to accommodate the projects' additional approval requirements.
Section 16: Vested Rizhts
The development approvals granted pursuant to Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution Number 18, Series of 2006, and Resolution Number 19, Series of 2007; and
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 18, Series of 2007 and herein shall
be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development
order.
No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall
cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 5
a
boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the p al s
site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant
Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property
right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article
68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property:
308 East Hopkins Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No.
27, Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council.
Section 17:
All material representations licant pursuant to the
and commitments made by the App
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and
Zoning approvals annd to
he same shall complied be mplied withas if fully l
y set forth herein, unless amended
by an authorized entity.
Section 18:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 19: or portion of this resolution is for any
1f any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase,
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 20:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 9 day of July, 200, in the v y
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 11 day of June, 2007.
[signatures on the following page]
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 6
icha 1 C. Irel , Mayor
ATTEST: EkZ uv
Kathryn S. Koir, qty Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9th day of July, 2007.
M ichael C. reland , M or
ATTEST: 5.Z- b e
i
thryn S. Ko; , City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
r
. orcester, City Attorney
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 7
,-..
~'' ,~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner n o ~~ .,,
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director I' AIVVy)
DATE OF MEMO: June 26, 2007 ~~~JJJ•••
MEETING DATE: July 9, 2007
RE: 308 East Hopkins Avenue, Subdivision, Second Reading of
Ordinance #27, Series of 2007.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to grant Subdivision approval for the
development of multiple residential units on the property, formerly known as "La Cocina,"
located at 308 East Hopkins Avenue. These residential units are part of a mixed use
development.
BACKGROUND: The 6,032 squaze foot lot (with alley access) is located in the Commercial
Core (CC) Historic District, and was included as a contributing historic resource to the District
until 2001 (HPC Resolution 6) when it was "delisted" due to loss of integrity. The historic
context of 308 East Hopkins is partially intact: a modest miner's cottage abuts the east property
line, and the A.G. Sheppazd House is located two buildings to the west, on the corner of Hopkins
and Monazch Street.
308 East Hopkins currently contains a two story commercial building with 2,745 square feet of
net leasable commercial space. The applicant has received approval to demolish the existing
building and develop a three story mixed-use building comprising: commercial space on the first
floor with 2,512 squaze feet of net leasable area; three affordable housing units and one free
market residence on the second floor; and one free mazket residence on the third floor. The
redevelopment will replace the existing commercial space, which pursuant to Land Use Code
section 26.470.040.A(7), does not require growth management review. P&Z granted growth
management allotments for the free market residential units and affordable housing units.
Page 1 of 4
-~
...J
Design Approved by Historic Preservation Commission (HPC): The HPC granted a Certificate
of Appropriateness (this includes Conceptual and Final approval), Demolition approval,
Commercial Design Standard Review, and Viewplane approval for the redevelopment proposal.
Viewplane Review: At HPC's request, the applicant dropped the floorplate heights, and the
overall height of the proposed building, to reduce the impact on the viewplane from the Jerome
Hotel. HPC considered both the context of the site (i.e. development potential in the same block,
with frontage along Main Street) and precedent for viewplane approval in the Commerical Core
(i.e. the Matsuhisha rear addition), and found that the proposed 3.3 foot intrusion had a negligible
impact on the Hotel Jerome Viewplane?
GMOS allotments granted by Planning and Zoning (P&Z): The P&Z Commission approved
Growth Management allotments for two (2) free-market units and three (3) affordable housing
units as part of the mixed use redevelopment.3
DISCUSSION:
SusnJVlSION: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of
multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision, pursuant to the definition of a
subdivision a It is a technical subdivision that is needed to demazcate ownership units within a
single building.5
In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff finds that the proposal meets the
applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050,
Review Standards, as outlined in Exhibit A. Staff ftnds that the proposal is consistent with the
infill development goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval of Subdivision to City Council by a vote of five to
one (5 -1).
The approved dimensions are as follows:
~ HPC Resolution #18 of 2006 (Conceptual, Demolition, Commercial Design Standazd Review) and HPC Resolution
# 19 of 2007 (Final). Exhibit B. The HPC heazd the application three times during the Conceptual, Commercial
Design, and Viewplane Review before granting approval. Minutes from HPC Conceptual Review meetings held on
March 8, 2006; June 14, 2006; and July 12, 2006; and Final Review on April 25, 2007, are attached as Exhibit C.
Z The applicant included a color' graphic illustrating the impact of the viewplane, see Exhibit H. Minutes from HPC
conceptual review meetings (when HPC discussed viewplane review) held on March 8, 2006; June 14, 2006; and
July l2, 2006 are attached as Exhibit C.
' P&Z Resolution # 18 of 2007 (GMQS approval and Subdivision recommendation). Exhibit D.
°Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.104.100, is defined as "the process, act, or result of dividine
land into two or more lots parcels or other units of land or sepazate leeal interests for the purpose of transfer of
ownership leasehold interest building or development..."
5 Once construction is nearly completed, but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer must file
a condominium plat and associated documents for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community
Development Director.
Page 2 of 4
--*~
...
'
-' ~~ ~
U~` ~ ~~ ~~ s~ ~~
~a r m
_
Minimum Lot 6,032 sq. ft. No requirement
Size
Minimum Lot 60 ft. No requirement
Width
Minimum Lot N/A No requirement
Area/Dwellin
Minimum Front 0 fr. No requirement
Yazd Setback
Minimum Side 0 fr.
Yard Setback No requirement
Minimum Rear 0 fr. No requirement except trash/utility service area
Yard Setback shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to
Section 26.575.060
Maximtun 35 fr.-measured to the top of 42 feet for all areas of the property.
Height the third floor
View plane review was granted 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from
at HPC, including approval for lot lines adjoining a Street right-of--way.
a 3.3' intrusion.
Minimum N/A No requirement
Distance between
Buildin son Lot
Pedestrian Providing 8%, as approved by Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Amenity Space HPC; Cash-in-Lieu fee for Amenity
17% or [ ($50 * 6,032 sq. fr. )
*17% =$51,272
Floor Area Ratio Cumulative Commercial: Cumulative Maximum: Commercial: 1.5:1
(FAR) FAR: 3,630 sq. tt. 18,096 sq. ft or 3:1 up to 2:1 (with
12,256 sq. fr. (0.60:1) affordable housing
2
1 increase
(approx.
:
)
N/A Lodging, Arts, Cultural
& Civic, Public, Rec,
Academic uses: 3:1
Affordable Affordable
Housing: Housing: No
2,632 sq. fr. limitation
0.43:1
Free-Market Free-Market
Residential: Residential: 1:1
5,994 sq. fr.
(0.99:1
Page 3 of 4
~~
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff finds that the Subdivision criteria are met, and
recommends the City Council approve Ordinance #27, Series of 2007.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance #27, Series of 2007, upon Second
Reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A -Subdivision Criteria.
B -HPC Resolution # 18 Series 2006(Conceptual Review, Demolition, Viewplane) and # 19
Series of 2007 (Final Review).
C -HPC Minutes: March 8, 2006; June14, 2006; July 12, 2006; April 25, 2007.
D - P&Z Resolution # 18 Series of 2007.
E - P&Z Minutes.• Apri117, 2007.
F-Design Review Committee Minutes.
G -Housing Board comments.
H-Viewplane Illustration, application was provided at First Reading.
Page 4 of 4
r.. ,.y
~,.. "J
ORDINANCE N0.27
(SERIES OF 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
WITH CONDITIONS, SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION FOR, 308
E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M AND N, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL N0.2737-073-29-007.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from J. W. Venture, LLC represented by Vann Associates, LLC, requesting approval of
Subdivision and Condominiumization to construct amixed-use building consisting of
2,745 squaze feet of commercial space, 2 free-mazket residential units and 3 affordable
housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public heazing on July 12, 2006, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006, by a four to one
vote (4 - 1), approving Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Viewplane Exemption,
Pedestrian Amenity Space, and Conceptual development within a Historic District; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission found that the 3 foot 3 inch
intrusion into the Hotel Jerome Viewplane was insignificant and granted exemption; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on Apri125, 2007, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved with conditions Resolution No. 19, Series of 2007,
by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0), approving Final development within a Historic District;
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 17, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.18, Series of 2007, by a five to one (5 -1)
vote, approving two Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed-use
building that includes commercial space, free market and affordable housing,
recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision to
construct amixed-use building consisting of two (2) free-mazket residential unit and
2,745 squaze feet of commercial space; and,
WHEREAS, on , 2007, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 27,
Series 2007, on Second Reading by a to _( _-~ vote, approving with conditions
the Subdivision and Condominiumization of 308 E. Hopkins Ave, Lots M and N, Block
80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 1
~.
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal,
with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1•
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves a Subdivision and
Condominiumization allowing J. W. Venture, LLC, to construct amixed-use building
consisting of one (1) commercial space, two (2) free market residential units and three (3)
deed restricted affordable housing units on the property located at 308 E. Hopkins Ave,
Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO.
Section 2: Plat and Agreement
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of such
approval. The Subdivision Agreement shall also include a commitment to satisfy all
conditions of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 18, Series of 2007 as
well as all conditions of this Ordinance. A final Condominium Plat shall be approved and
signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of
construction and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Section 3: Building Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance, HPC Resolutions and P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
a A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly
the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit
submittal.
e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and
drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements.
The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The
construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 2
~, 'r.
\ - ..+
be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging aeeas will be
identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during
construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm
run off must be addressed.
£ A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
permit submittal plan.
g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted Building Code
requirements.
h. An approved Landscape Plan.
i. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
j. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
k. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and
drainage and soils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements.
The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The CMP
shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained
throughout construction, that landscaping, plantings and amenities on adjacent
properties will be protected, and that construction pazking will not encroach on
private property.
1. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted building code
requirements.
m. An approved Landscape Plan for landscaping in the public rights-of--way.
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The building as presented complies with the dimensional requirements of the
Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Compliance with these requirements will be
verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal.
The subgrade storage aeeas shall remain uninhabitable and unimproved storage facilities.
If these areas are remodeled in the future, the applicant shall go through the appropriate
land use reviews in place at the time of application.
Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness
regulations pertaining to size and security.
Section 6: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter
The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA
requirements. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide
sidewalk, curb and gutter plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such
improvements shall be made prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the
units within the development.
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 3
~..
\.- - r
Section 7: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements
a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the
District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear
water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing
establishment; Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building
permit; even though the commercial space will be tenant-finished, interceptors will be
required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project.
d. Oil and Sand separators aze required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shaft
drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors.
e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require
installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared
service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a
single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or
right of ways.
£ Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping
may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
h. Any glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge
of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitazy sewer system. The glycol
storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
i. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines.
j. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow
calculations.
Section 9: Exterior LiQhtine
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 10: Landscanine
a. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of
the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in
this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 4
r-- -'^.
~, , ...~
connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not
encroach into the tree protection zones.
b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, a tree removal permit will
need to be approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department. To the extent that
mitigation is required for any removals, the required mitigation will be provided to
the satisfaction of the Pazks Department via payment of cash-in-lieu of plantings, the
planting of street trees, or a combination of these methods.
c. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under
the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service
company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees
located on adjacent properties.
d. Planting in the Public Right-Of--Way (ROW) will be subject to Landscaping in the
ROW requirements. Improvements to the ROW should include new grass, irrigation
and the applicant shall work with the Pazks Department in order to design an
appropriate trench box for the new tree plantings. Plans for the tree plantings should
be completed and conceptually approved prior to building permit submittal.
Section 11: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a pazk
development impact fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated
according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code Section 26.610.09 0, Fee Schedule.
Section 12: Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity, the Applicant shall
pay acash-in-lieu fee for pedestrian amenity in the amount equal to seventeen (17%)
percent of the lot area, as the applicant is providing eight percent (8%) on site, prior to
building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation:
Lot azea = 6,032 squaze feet
17% of Lot Area = 1,025.44 square feet
Payment = $50 x 1025.44 squaze feet
Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu = $51,272,
Section 13: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall
pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the
calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit
submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site
improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site.
Section 14: Reconstruction Credits Deadline Extension
The one (1) yeaz deadline for the reconstruction of existing commercial net leasable
credits, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070.A, is hereby extended to two (2)
years to accommodate the projects' additional approval requirements.
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 5
r
....
Section 15: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted pursuant to Historic Preservation Commision
Resolution Number 18, Series of 2006, and Resolution Number 19, Series of 2007; and
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 18, Series of 2007 and herein shall
be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development
order.
No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews
necessazy to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall
cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a
site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this
Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property
right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article
68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property:
308 East Hopkins Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No.
27, Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council.
Section 16:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public heazing or
documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and
Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended
by an authorized entity.
Section 17:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 18•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 19:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 9a' day of July, 2007, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
[signatures on following page]
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 6
~:
'^h
.,.r
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the l ls' day of June, 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this th day of , 2007.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
Michael C. Ireland ,Mayor
Ordinance No. 27
Series 2007
Page 7
r^ .,
`.,~
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
The project contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the
managing growth section of the AACP. Additionally, this development does not require growth
Management Allotments, complying with the 2% desired annual growth in the managing growth
section of the AACP.
The project promotes the AACP's goals with regards to transportation by developing a building
that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes -transit, walking, and bicycling -and
that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level
and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities.
The redevelopment proposes to exceed affordable housing requirements on the site, fulfilling the
goals of the AACP.
The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include
improvements along sidewalks on East Hopkins Avenue and will pay a Park Development
Impact Fee. Cash in lieu payment for 17% of the Pedestrian Amenity Space will be used for
important pedestrian improvement downtown. HPC did not support more than the proposed
open space on the site in an effort to remain consistent with downtown chazacter.
The development also meets the AACP with regard to design quality as the azchitectural design
enhances the existing chazacter of the area through its consistency with the Commercial Design
Standazds reviewed by the HPC.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the area.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed mixed-use building is consistent with the land uses in the
immediate vicinity. Further, the HPC has reviewed the Application for consistency with the
neighborhood characteristics in the Commercial Core. The design has received Conceptual and
Final design approval from the HPC Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Finding
Exhibit A- Subdivision Criteria
308 East Hopkins Avenue
Page 1 of 3
P' ^1,
l ..1
The surrounding properties are close to fully developed. Additionally, the development meets all
the requirements of the CC zone district, and park development, school land, and other impact
fees will be paid to mitigate for any other impacts from the development. Therefore, Staff does
not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding
properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff Finding
The proposed development is in compliance with the CC zone district requirements and meets all
other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Suitability of laud for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because ofJlooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition
that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed
subdivision.
Staff Finding
Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site is already developed and is
within the designated Aspen Infill Area. The site contains no overly steep topography and no
known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed
development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Findine
Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. Staff finds that there will be no
duplication of public facilities as the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate
public facilities. The Applicant has stated the cost of any necessary utility extensions or
upgrades will be borne by the Applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430)
if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision
design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community.
Exhibit A- Subdivision Criteria
308 East Hopkins Avenue
Page 2 of 3
~,~ :,~
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional
engineers as necessary.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to
Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall
be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter
26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is providing more than the required affordable housing on site. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth
at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding
The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standads pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing
land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications
for which al[ growth management development allotments have been granted or growth
management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision
approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit
Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly
created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to
development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, §
2)
Staff Finding
The development was granted the necessary Growth Management Allotments for the free-market
units and affordable housing. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Exhibit A- Subdivision Criteria
308 East Hopkins Avenue
Page 3 of 3
-- -~-
~mm0
Ol_J
V
ti~
h
•_~~
V N
Q O
O
0.
V z~
(ry ~ o
>-
J ~~
~ ~c
c
QQU
O~
V ~o
0
Fv
~Q
_`~
w~
m~
Qo
Ou
J SL
QO
1'~
W
4
O
W
W
W°
~~
Zo
V~
VW
Q ai
JQ
0
6
N
W
3 ~
O J
p p 2 K Z
U O_ yZj
Z ~ J p ~ Z
W JJQ W JJQ W N4 Q~ W~ W JQ Fp
~ woz o woz o ~a a~~ w~ x~
In sp ~S In ~p~3 I~il v rc3 au ~ ~ 3 wp z W
\ V ~ O
W ~ U O~
J
W ~ ~- ~,
F-- ~
-- _ ~ ~
~ z
o ~,
___ ~
- ---_- Q
Q O Y
Z U
m
Q Q
J U
r
~
W
~ a
p O
F U
Z
a
J II
4
J O
LL ~
O O
K ti
I J (f (~ ( I I I
O
~ ypJ~KJ~
NW W ~ wJQ
mF OJ Kw
ZN OJ
7 Km Q 34 4
1
1 U1 ~, p0
J W m p 3 Q W q Q N
r
p N O
z
~~
Z U$
o i
~ a ~<
3 ° JK
~
Iv z c~ a~ ~~
o a o za
2
°
I
O
I ~
ro~ ~ \
I 3 O
I
m
I
~
o p
= x I
'~ x
~ ~
~ O
~ m
z ~
~ ~
~ n ~ n
{y ~
> ~ Z J W J
7 > j y
1
W ~ W
y J y
W > W ~ W > W
yj d tri ~ N J ~i Z N ~ vi
p j 0 ~ O ~ O ~ O 0 0
a
7
z ~'
w ~
~ w ~
~ ~
O z ~
~ w
j Q O Q
w
~ (n Q ~ -6
w z ~
~ -
~ O c ~
J C O
Q ~ O ~ o
z ~ 0 CC U
U ~ cn
O w z ~ ~
/
~./ w L
~ ~ Q
Q O ~
/-~
V / ~ cn
1
~
I J Q //
~~
l./ Q
_ _
0 0
Q 2 Q J
U O U ?
s
< ._
m
~ ~ U
J N N
W
~ °a
w
•i~ ~
zw
OJ
Q U
~ ~
W
J ~
w ~
0
z
z
w
~ W
~ ~
oz
Jw
O
wao
ocnQ
wz~
~ ~ O
Q a- O
z~v
U
Owz
U w
~ ~
Q O Q
J I~
U O
z°
~ N
O
U ~
~ ~
I- ~
U ~
z
w
cn
Q
U
N
L
Q
a~ o
~~
•~ ~
~ o
~ o
U U
a~ ~
~ ~
~ Q
~ ~
U Q
o y~ o ~
W N
M J O
1
N ~'
I
_
g II _
p II
~ .. K .. w
W
W
Ix/I
0
N
S
U
W
O
0
0
a
J
U
K
W
a
a
0
U
Z Z F G Z
~ ~
o
w I
~
U < J O U
u ~
Zw w w
p K O J II O
UI W
2 H
N y~
>
4 H
N
O J O
U K
y ~{
x ~ ~
? ~ a moo rc I
iN ~ a ~~_ i° z
II ~ II m m ~~ I ~ I ~
d' W J J W~ W~ V
j W J j W W~ W J W
~! C' W W W J O
+l Q w W N N F~ W ~ W X J
m a o O Z ~ F
'A N j UI W O VI V1 0 W
O N O i i ¢ w¢ O O F O
~ ~ Q Q O ~ ~ <
chi a a x rc in
~ ~~~
0
oz
~~
o~
a~
J x
UW
J J
WO
~ O
/
I
W
Y
D
J
Q Y
S
9
~ ~ U
2 r "p 2 m O m
~ ~ o~ ~ o ~ ~
O J II O ~ I
yJ !JZ N i >
~
V1 W J ~ n 1
J F W
W W
W W J
.. ~ m W J ..
.,
J
O
J g
Z
~ II
1
J
w
O
0
8
J ~
J
W W
J .^
a
yJ~
S
O J
W
0
m
II
WJ ~
J j
J W
~~n
zw J ~
O J U O
~Q z °
Q U ~ N
> ~ O
w.. U ~
J ~
w~ ~ ~
~
(7 U ~
w
~ z
w
Q
Z ~
~~
W U
~ W ~
~ ~ ~
O z ~
~ W U
j Q O Q
w
o
cn o
Q
°~
'
°
w z ~ ~
~ .~
~ -
~ O ~
Q
u ~
o ~
~ o
o
z ~ U U U
U cn
O w z a~ ~
U w L a~
00 ~- ~ Q
Q
~ Q U Q
U
2
W. O
a ~ ~
z
U m ~
a
~ $ ~
0
0
J
U
N
0
0
W
a
U
8
i
0
WWJ ~ I
O
, ~ WW
O WW
w o Q
Q ~ G C
S m
O 0
2 0 J p
O j U
m
^ ~ 2 N ^~
II U i
U I U O ~ A a tl WW
S I
~ O J ~ O
~ O I
T 2 W > Q Z J W J W W
J J
W
C U UW .~ W W UW UI K
U °_ w W
W Fm W 2 m W 1
J
~N ~ Y UI
wp ~ ~ O F
w~ ~ aw d rc NO d
vl s o N ,_ ~ o In arc r m ~ ~
\ I\
Z
~ J
Y ~< F Z
m
b U
O
'y
~ fh H I 4 ~ O M1 m ~ W O 4 O I
J O
~ ~ V' ~
Z
~ ~ W O; F
J
~p f
P _
^
II ~ ^O
I m
II
II O Z
II Z
3 J
~ II O
pp
~ Z Z N ~
> Z >
J >
~ >
yN_ ~
D O 'J > a y
J J W ~ 1 ~ yJ/
W 1 J {Jy
W > y
J ~
W > J
W J J
W
~ 2 iv 6' >
W W K
zw J ~
oQ z Oo
Q U
~ ~ N
O
w _
J ~ U O~
W ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~_
U ~
~
Q
w z
w
o.
Q
z `~
w ~
~ w ~
a. ~
O z .~
J w U
~ Q O Q
W
~ (n Q ~ -~
w z w
_
~ -
~ O ~ °
J ~ O
a w o ~ o
z ~ U O U
U - ~
O w z a~ ~
U w ~ a~
~ ~ O Q
Q O (n ~ cn
J ~ Q U Q
~ ~~~ ~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council /-
FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation PlanneP j~ ~~~P~A~A~n~^
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director C~Yrr'
DATE OF MEMO: May 31, 2007
MEETING DATE: June 11, 2007
RE: 308 East Hopkins Avenue- Subdivision, First Reading of
Ordinance #_, Series of 2007, Second Reading is scheduled for
July 9, 2007.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to grant Subdivision approval for the
development of multiple units on the property, formerly known as "La Cocina," located at 308
East Hopkins Avenue.
BACKGROUND: The 6,032 square foot lot (with alley access) is located in the Commercial
Core (CC) Historic District, and was included as a contributing historic resource to the District
until 2001 (HPC Resolution 6) when it was "delisted" due to loss of integrity. The historic
context of 308 East Hopkins is partially intact: a modest miner's cottage abuts the east property
line, and the A.G. Sheppazd House is located two buildings to the west, on the corner of Hopkins
and Monarch Street.
308 East Hopkins currently contains a two story commercial building with 2,745 square feet of
net leasable commercial space. The applicant has received approval to demolish the existing
building and develop a three story mixed-use building comprising: commercial space on the first
floor with 2,512 square feet of net leasable azea; three affordable housing units and one free
market residence on the second floor; and one free market residence on the third floor. The
redevelopment will replace the existing commercial space, which pursuant to Land Use Code
section 26.470.040.A(7), does not require growth management review. P&Z granted growth
management allotments for the free mazket residential units and affordable housing units.
Design Approved by Historic Preservation Commission (HPC): The HPC granted a Certificate
of Appropriateness (this includes Conceptual and Final approval), Demolition approval,
Page I of 4
Commercial Design Standazd Review, and Viewplane exemption for the redevelopment
proposal. ~
GMOS allotments granted by Planning and Zoning (P&Z): The P&Z Commission approved
Growth Management allotments for two (2) free-market units and three (3) affordable housing
units as part of the mixed use redevelopment.Z
DISCUSSION:
SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of
multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision, pursuant to the definition of a
subdivision.3 It is a technical subdivision that is needed to demazcate ownership units within a
single building.4
In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff finds that the proposal meets the
applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050,
Review Standards, as outlined in Exhibit A. Sta(ffinds that the proposal is consistent with the
in ill development goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval of Subdivision to City Council by a vote of five to
one (5 -1).
The a roved dimensions are as follows:
`` : ~ & ZAgprg~~ ~ s;Fat~C -ne Als!ti'-c#,11~
~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 6'~`ta ~Q~ de~etopm~~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~x
x~ .~ ~ 5 ~ ~e
~, ~~ ~ E~
r ~
;
_,~,~_
Minimum Lot 6,032 sq. ft. No requirement
Size
Minimum Lot 60 ft. No requirement
Width
Minimttm Lot N/A No requirement
Area/Dwellin
Minimum Front 0 ft. No requirement
Yazd Setback
~ HPC Resolution #18 of 2006 (Conceptual, Demolition, Commercial Design Standard Review) and HPC Resolution
# 19 of 2007 (Final). Exhibit B. The HPC heard the application three times during the Conceptual, Commercial
Design, and Viewplane Review before granting approval. Minutes from HPC conceptual review meetings held on
March 8, 2006; June 14, 2006; and July l2, 2006 are attached as Exhibit C.
z P&Z Resolution # 18 of 2007 (GMQS approval and Subdivision recommendation). Exhibit D.
'Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.104.100, is defined as "the process, act, or result of dividing
land into two or more lots, parcels, or other units of land or separate legal interests, for the pumose of transfer of
ownership leasehold interest building or development '
Once construction is nearly completed, but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer must file
a condominium plat and associated documents for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community
Development Director.
Page 2 of 4
~~
~ 'sl xt.p..i #~.~ FSi ~
"
~ 1 c.. ~ ~,.
. %~ iV k
Mif
_t._...x S
3 "
"
Minimum Side 0 ft.
No requirement
Yazd Setback
Minimum Reaz 0 ft. No requirement except trash/utility service azea
Yazd Setback shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to
Section 26.575.060
Maximum 35 ft.- measured to the top of 42 feet for all azeas of the ro e
p p ~~
Height the third floor
View plane review was granted 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from
at HPC, including a variance lot lines adjoining a Street right-of--way.
fora 3.3' intrusion.
Minimum N/A No requirement
Distance between
Buildin son Lot
Pedestrian Providing 8%, as approved by Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Amenity Space HPC; Cash-in-Lieu fee for Amenity
17% or [ ($50 * 6,032 sq. fr. )
* 17%] _ $51,272
Floor Area Ratio Cumulative Commercial: Cumulative Maximum: Commercial: 1.5:1
(FAR) FAR: 3,630 sq. ft. 18,096 sq. ft or 3:1 up to 2:1 (with
12,256 sq. ft. affordable housing
(approx. 2:1) increase
N/A Lodging, Arts,
Cultural and Civic,
Public,
Recreational,
Academic uses: 3:1
Affordable Affordable
Housing: Housing: No
2,632 s . ft. limitation
Free-Market Free-Market
Residential: Residential: 1:1
5,994 s . ft.
Maximum Free-Market Residential Unit: 2,000 sq. ft.
Residential Unit 1,447 sq. ft.(second floor unit) Note: The 2,000 sq. ft. maximum permitted was
Size and established by Ordinance I2, Series 2006.
(sq. ft.) 3,500 sq. ft. (third floor unit) This application was submitted prior to the
passage of Ordinance 12, and is therefore not
required to comply with the 2, 000 sq. ft.
maximum.
Page 3 of 4
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff finds that the Subdivision criteria are met, and
recommends approval.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # Series of 2007 upon First
Reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A -Subdivision Criteria.
B - HPC Resolution # 18 Series 2006 and # 19 Series of 2007.
C -HPC Minutes: March 8, 2006; June14, 2006; July 12, 2006.
D - P&Z Resolution # 18 Series of 2007.
E -Design Review Committee Minutes.
F -Housing Board comments.
Page 4 of 4
ORDINANCE N0.'
(SERIES OF 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
WITH CONDITIONS, SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION FOR, 308
E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M AND N, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737- 073 -29 -007.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from J. W. Venture, LLC represented by Vann Associates, LLC, requesting approval of
Subdivision and Condominiumization to construct a mixed -use building consisting of
2,745 square feet of commercial space, 2 free - market residential units and 3 affordable
housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 12, 2006, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006, by a four to one
vote (4 — 1), approving Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Viewplane Exemption,
Pedestrian Amenity Space, and Conceptual development within a Historic District; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission found that the 3 foot 3 inch
intrusion into the Hotel Jerome Viewplane was insignificant and granted exemption; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2007, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved with conditions Resolution No. 19, Series of 2007,
by a vote of four to zero (4 — 0), approving Final development within a Historic District;
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 17, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.18, Series of 2007, by a five to one (5 -1)
vote, approving two Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed -use
building that includes commercial space, free market and affordable housing,
recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision to
construct a mixed -use building consisting of two (2) free - market residential unit and
2,745 square feet of commercial space; and,
WHEREAS, on the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. _, Series
2007, on First Reading by a = vote, approving with conditions the Subdivision and
Condominiumization of 308 E. Hopkins Ave, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite
of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 1
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal,
with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves a Subdivision and
Condominiumization allowing J. W. Venture, LLC, to construct a mixed -use building
consisting of one (1) commercial space, two (2) free market units and three (3) deed
restricted affordable housing units on the property located at 308 E. Hopkins Ave, Lots M
and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO.
Section 2: Plat and Agreement
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of such
approval. The Subdivision Agreement shall also include a commitment to satisfy all
conditions of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 18, Series of 2007 as
well as all conditions of this Ordinance. A final Condominium Plat shall be approved and
signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of
construction and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Section 3: Building Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance, HPC Resolutions and P &Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly
the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit
submittal.
e. An excavation - stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and
drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements.
The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The
construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 2
be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be
identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during
construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm
run off must be addressed.
f. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
permit submittal plan.
g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted Building Code
requirements.
h. An approved Landscape Plan.
i. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
j. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
k. An excavation - stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and
drainage and soils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements.
The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The CMP
shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained
throughout construction, that landscaping, plantings and amenities on adjacent
properties will be protected, and that construction parking will not encroach on
private property.
1. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted building code
requirements.
m. An approved Landscape Plan for landscaping in the public rights -of -way.
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The building as presented complies with the dimensional requirements of the
Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Compliance with these requirements will be
verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal.
The subgrade storage areas shall remain uninhabitable and unimproved storage facilities.
If these areas are remodeled in the future, the applicant shall go through the appropriate
land use reviews in place at the time of application.
Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness
regulations pertaining to size and security.
Section 6: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter
The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA
requirements. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide
sidewalk, curb and gutter plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such
improvements shall be made prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the
units within the development.
Section 7: Water Department Requirements
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 3
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements
a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the
District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear
water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
b. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing
establishment; Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building
permit; even though the commercial space will be tenant - finished, interceptors will be
required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project.
d. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shaft
drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors.
e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require
installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared
service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a
single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or
right of ways.
f. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping
may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
h. Any glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge
of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol
storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
i. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines.
j. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow
calculations.
Section 9: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 10: Landscaping
a. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of
the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over - digging is prohibited in
this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility
connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not
encroach into the tree protection zones.
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 4
c
b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, a tree removal permit will
need to be approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department. To the extent that
mitigation is required for any removals, the required mitigation will be provided to
the satisfaction of the Parks Department via payment of cash -in -lieu of plantings, the
planting of street trees, or a combination of these methods.
c. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under
the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service
company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees
located on adjacent properties.
d. Planting in the Public Right -Of —Way (ROW) will be subject to Landscaping in the
ROW requirements. Improvements to the ROW should include new grass, irrigation
and the applicant shall work with the Parks Department in order to design an
appropriate trench box for the new tree plantings. Plans for the tree plantings should
be completed and conceptually approved prior to building permit submittal.
Section 11: Park Development and TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a park
development impact fee and a TDM /Air Quality impact fee prior to building permit
issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code
Section 26.610.09 0, Fee Schedule.
Section 12: Pedestrian Amenity Cash -in -Lieu Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity, the Applicant shall
pay a cash -in -lieu fee for pedestrian amenity in the amount equal to seventeen (17 %)
percent of the lot area, as the applicant is providing eight percent (8 %) on site, prior to
building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation:
Lot area = 6,032 square feet
17% of Lot Area = 1,025.44 square feet
Payment = $50 x 1025.44 square feet
Pedestrian Amenity Cash -in -Lieu = $51,272,
Section 13: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall
pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the
calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit
submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site
improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site.
Section 14: Reconstruction Credits Deadline Extension
The one (1) year deadline for the reconstruction of existing commercial net leasable
credits, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070.A, is hereby extended to two (2)
years to accommodate the projects' additional approval requirements.
Section 15: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted pursuant to Historic Preservation Commision
Resolution Number 18, Series of 2006, and Resolution Number 19, Series of 2007; and
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 5
0
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 18, Series of 2007 and herein shall
be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development
order.
No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall
cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a
site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this
Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property
right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article
68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property:
308 East Hopkins Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No.
_, Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council.
Section 16:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and
Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended
by an authorized entity.
Section 17:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 18:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 19:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 9 day of July, 2007, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
[signatures on following page]
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 6
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 11 day of June, 2007.
, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this th day of , 2007.
, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 7
.~..
a,,.
Exhibit A
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standazds and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
The project contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the
managing growth section of the AACP. Additionally, this development does not require growth
Management Allotments, complying with the 2% desired annual growth in the managing growth
section of the AACP.
The project promotes the AACP's goals with regards to transportation by developing a building
that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes -transit, walking, and bicycling -and
that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level
and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities.
The redevelopment proposes to exceed affordable housing requirements on the site, fulfilling the
goals of the AACP.
The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include
improvements along sidewalks on East Hopkins Avenue and will pay a Pazk Development
Impact Fee. Cash in lieu payment for 17% of the Pedestrian Amenity Space will be used for
important pedestrian improvement downtown. HPC did not support more than the proposed
open space on the site in an effort to remain consistent with downtown chazacter.
The development also meets the AACP with regard to design quality as the architectural design
enhances the existing chazacter of the area through its consistency with the Commercial Design
Standards reviewed by the HPC.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the area.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed mixed-use building is consistent with the land uses in the
immediate vicinity. Further, the HPC has reviewed the Application for consistency with the
neighborhood chazacteristics in the Commercial Core. The design has received Conceptual and
Final design approval from the HPC Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 1 of 3
r^
Stafl Finding
The surrounding properties are close to fully developed. Additionally, the development meets all
the requirements of the CC zone district, and park development, school land, and other impact
fees will be paid to mitigate for any other impacts from the development. Therefore, Staff does
not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding
properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff Finding
The proposed development is in compliance with the CC zone district requirements and meets all
other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rocks[ide,
avalanche or snows[ide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition
that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed
subdivision.
Staff Finding
Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site is already developed and is
within the designated Aspen Infill Area. The site contains no overly steep topography and no
known geologic hazazds that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed
development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. Staff finds that there will be no
duplication of public facilities as the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate
public facilities. The Applicant has stated the cost of any necessary utility extensions or
upgrades will be borne by the Applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430)
if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision
design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community.
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 2 of 3
2. The applicant shall sped each design standard variation requested and provide
justiftcation for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional
engineers as necessary.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to
Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall
be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter
26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is providing more than the required affordable housing on site. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth
at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding
The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standazds pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing
land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications
for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth
management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision
approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned. Affordable Housing Planned Unit
Development (AH-PUD) without ftrst obtaining growth management approvals if the newly
created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to
development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, §
2)
Staff Finding
The development was granted the necessary Growth Management Allotments for the free-market
units and affordable housing. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 3 of 3
~.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),
VIEWPLANE REVIEW, PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE, DEMOLITION AND
COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 308 EAST
HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M, AND N, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
RESOLUTION NO. 18, SERIES OF 2006
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-29-007.
WHEREAS, the applicant, JW Venture LLC, represented by Sunny Vann and Charles Cunniffe
Architects has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Commercial Design
Review for the property located at 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for View Plane Exemption the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at a heazing to determine the project's conformance with
Municipal Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, in order to authorize a demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of
designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the
following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazazd to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
r+ ~
~..~ ~/
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
azchitectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the followine criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, azchitectural or aesthetic relationship
to adjacent designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a heazing to determine, per Section 26.412 of
the Municipal Code, that the project conforms with the following criteria:
1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design standazds or any deviation from the standazds provides amore-appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not
required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the fagade of the
building may be required to comply with this section.
3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a
Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan
approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This
criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the
Historic Preservation Commission; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated July 12, 2006, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standazds, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on July 12, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standazds and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote
of4to 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), View Plane
Review, Pedestrian Amenity Space, Demolition, and Commercial Design Review for the
P,
..~
"~
,/
property located at 308 East Hopkins Avenue, Lot M & N, Block 80, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions;
A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of July 2006.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 308 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M, AND N, BLOCK
80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
RESOLUTION NO. 19, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-29-007.
WHEREAS, the applicant, JW Venture LLC, represented by Sunny Vann and Charles Cunniffe
Architects has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Commercial Design
Review for the property located at 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until
to the Community Development Director
established for their review;" and
plans or sufficient information have been submitted
and approved in accordance with the procedures
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.of
the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated April 25, 2007, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on May 9, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standazds and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote
of4to0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Final) for the property located
at 308 East Hopkins Avenue, Lot M & N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as
proposed with the following conditions;
1. The applicant will restudy the material and style of the second floor balcony/railing on the
South Elevation, for review and approval by Staff and monitor.
2. The first floor fence enclosing the outdoor seating will be approved by Staff and monitor.
~'
3. Approval for the fixed glass windows along the west elevation is contingent on an
approval by the Building Department. Staff and monitor will review and approve any
changes to the approved plans.
4. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
5. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and. monitor, or the full boazd.
6. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) yeazs,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 308 East Hopkins
Avenue.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
[signatures on following page]
.~.. --~,
ti.. ....
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of May 2007.
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2006
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Alison Agley and Derek
Skalko. Jason Lasser was seated at 5:12 p.m. Michael Hoffrnan was
excused.
Staffpresent: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner
Jackie Lothian, Deputy Clerk
MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of Feb. 8`" as amended and
Feb. 22nd; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried.
308 E. HOPIQNS AVE. - CONCEPUTAL, COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW, DEMOLITION, PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE AND
VIEW PLAN REVIEW
Affidavit of postirig -Exhibit I
Charles Cunniffe, architect
Amy said there is a structure on the site and the proposal is to demolish and
replace it. The building used to be on the historic inventory and two years
ago it was de-listed. HPC needs to verify that the demolition standards have
been met. In terms of conceptual review staff feels there is a conflict with
the guidelines in terms of the placement of the entry. There are three entry
points on the ground level, two go to residential units and one into the
ground level restaurant. They are all setback from the street. Guidelines
13.3, and 13.19 suggest that the entry should be right at the sidewalk or
slightly recessed no more than 4 feet which is what you have when you have
a typical Victorian store front. The open balconies that face the street still
are in conflict with guideline 13.12 which requires flat facades. The
proposal is not consistent with downtown. Three-story buildings per
guideline 13.10 are to be considered on a case by case basis. Regarding the
commercial design review guidelines, staff finds that two guidelines A3 and
C3 are not in compliance. A3 requires a flat fagade on the first and second
levels. C3 requires entries to be well defined and apparent. The applicant is
requesting that the cash in lieu be waived for the open space (Pedestrian
Amenity Space). At this time Staff is not recommending in favor of the cash
in lieu waiver because the community needs it for other improvements in the
downtown. The last matter to deal with is the view plane. There is a view
plane that originates from the Hotel Jerome toward Aspen Mountain and as
1
M~1RC1~ ~ ,'l.Db (a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH S, 2006
Rob Inner, owner of Range restaurant. Rob said we welcome another
vibrant restaurant on the street. Rob said he hopes the architect is conscious
of the views in designing their wall on the west because their restaurant on
the second floor is set back.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing portion of the
meeting.
Board comments.
Derek said his concern is the overall massing and his concern is the 3'~ story.
We need to come to a balance. The current height is 42 feet. The patio will
add vibrancy to the street. Derek reconvnended a restudy of the massing
context.
Jason said the western fagade needs to be restudied to add sensitivity to the
block. The design would be better if it was a two story building with a third
story loft. The south fagade also needs restudied to comply with guideline
13.12. It should be broken down to have more of a horizontal effect. The
guidelines state that the entry should be on the street fagade and that should
be accommodated. There probably won't be dining in the winter.
Regarding the dining space, at the last meeting the deck above didn't have a
cover over it. We are trying to reduce the amount of balconies.
Alison also said she feels the entry should be looked at on the street fagade
and how that would work. The main entrance should be within four feet of
the street. She said Jason had a good point about walking through the patio
in the summer and during winter it isn't used. On the western fagade the
balcony not being glass and being brick would be better. The eastern
balcony needs restudied. Maybe it isn't necessary. Regarding the view
plane, this is difficult because it is the first building on the block. Story
poles would help. Alison is also in favor of continuance to look at the story
poles and restudy the balconies.
Sarah also concurred with the story poles. The view plane is a tough thing
for us to be judging projects by, but it is what we have and we need to
respect that. Maybe some articulations would lessen the blow of the view
plane. This is the first box going up but we need to judge it for today and
not tomorrow. If you can bring all the issues into play that were discussed, it
will serve this building well.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
~.,.- Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Alison Agley, Derek
Skalko. Jason Lasser was seated at 5:12 p.m. Michael Hoffman was
excused.
Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner
Sarah Adams, Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION.- Derek moved to approve the minutes of May 10, 2006,• second by
Alison. All in favor, motion carried.
701 W. MAIN -Monitoring -The historic bldg. has been picked up and
put it on its new foundation and they are getting ready to start the rehab
work. The question is about the door. There is an original door opening on
the east side of the shed It will be the entry to the living unit in the
basement. The applicant has asked if they can shift it northward in order to
make it more of a standard 6.8 door. This is required by code but historic
buildings have some flexibility. The building official indicated that the door
could remain in place as a 6.3 door.
Patrick Hunter, contractor said he was asked to put in the new door per code.
We will do whatever everyone agrees upon.
Jeffrey pointed out that they are trying to get the head room clearance.
Patrick said he just needs some kind of agreement.
MOTION.- Sarah moved to approve 701 E. Main to keep the historic door
opening and work with the City on allowing non-code requirements in
height. Motion second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes;
Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried S-0.
308 E. HOPHINS AVE. -CONCEPTUAL -DEMOLITION -
PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE, AND VIEW PLAN REVIEW
Charles Cunniffe, architect
Amy said in general the project has made a lot of progress from what was
„,_ initially proposed which was athree-story building with decks on the front.
~._ The latest is atwo-story that fits in with the scale of the neighborhood better.
IIIN• 1LN~ nhl.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINiJTES OF JUNE 14, 2006
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commissioner comments:
Derek pointed out that the height of this building has radically come down
since we first saw the project. He understands the unique architectures
adjacent to the building that they have to work with including the view
plane. Pushing the building back is more consistent with what is existing in
that area. From a view plane standpoint the height is negligible and as more
and more development occurs in the core we are inevitably going to find that
this issue will continue to come up. The height is 36 feet and it was reduced
from 42 feet. Derek is very supportive of the massing and scale but would
like more information regazding the first floor fenestration.
Jason said the street level stepping back is very successful and is sensitive to
the Range building and Genre building. The hazd part is that our guidelines
aze conflicting and a lot of effort has been made to accommodate them.
Jason's issue is the flat fagade in the back and the width of the upper loft.
Possibly it can come in two feet on either side. As far as the view plane is
concerned the ceiling height is 10 feet and maybe it can come down to 9 feet
to reduce the height into the view plane. Possibly a material change could
divide the first and second levels.
Alison said the width of the fagade of the second level doesn't read that wide
to her. Alison commended the architect for listening to the Boazds
comments and make revisions to the plans. The proposed building fits into
the street a lot better after the revisions. She would prefer that the fagade not
be broken up.
Massing -The second-story being pushed back works because we know that
the Genre and building on the corner will stay at those levels.
View plane -The height is below the allowable but also in the view plane.
P&Z gave view plane relief to the piece behind the Matshisa building and
that needs to be considered in setting precedents. With some of the other
Victorian's in the alley we are going to have these tall additions. Alison said
with dropping the building a foot it would not be a significapt impact on the
view plane.
Sarah said this building has come very far. Her issue is guideline 13.11
...- (dividing the building into modules) maybe there is a subtle way to do that.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2006
.•-, Jeffrey stated that in the future he would prefer that the HPC & P&Z have a
- joint meeting or work session.
Chazles said he has heard tonight that half the board feels the facade should
go straight across and others feel it should be stepped back. He asked the
board for clarification.
Alison said she is fine with the shadow line.
Charles said he can drop the plate height and incorporate the shadow line.
Sazah stated that she would prefer to see the drawings again because we are
working with mass and scale.
MOTION.• Derek moved to approve Resolution #15 for 308 E. Hopkins Ave.
for conceptual development as proposed. Motion dies for lack of a second.
MOTION.• Jason moved to approve Resolution #1 S for 308 E. Hopkins with
the following conditions:
1. Reduction of the roof plate heights upper loft to nine feet ceiling
height inside.
2. A step in the facade of the upper and second story brick fafade from
the lower level at both points to two feet each side.
3. Reduction in the width of the upper loft.
Motion second by Alison.
Sarah said she has difficulties putting design constraints on a project that
need restudied.
Jeffrey said the board in general is in favor of an exemption of the view
plan.
Amended motion:
4. Keep separation as close to the building but not replace Genre's
siding. Provide functionality for access to Genre.
Roll call vote: Jason, no. Derek, no. Alison, no; Jeffrey, no. Sarah, no.
Motion dies 4-0.
MOTION.• Derek moved to continue Conceptual development and the public
hearing for 308 E. Hopkins until July 12, 2006; second by Sarah. All in
favor, motion carried 4-0.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2006
Jeffrey relayed that Chapter 13 and 14 have been adhered to. T'he
modifications have helped its mass and scale.
MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve Resolution #17 for 508 E. Cooper Ave.
as presented tonight, second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek,
yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Je,~frey, yes. Motion carried 5-0.
308 E. HOPHINS -CONCEPTUAL -DEMOLITION -PEDESTRIAN
AMENTY SPACE AND VIEW PLANE REVIEW -PUBLIC
HEARING
Exhibit I -Genre building -fire wall.
Amy explained that staff feels there has been a lot of progress on the project.
At the last hearing there were a few things asked to be restudied: Reduce
plate heights and pulling in the width of the upper floor to minimize the
intrusion of the Hotel Jerome view plane. Restudy breaking the building
into two 30 foot modules. Allow enough space between the new
construction and the Genre building for maintenance and to ensure that the
historic siding would not have to be removed. The applicant has clearly
done a few of these things, reduced the plate heights and they have also
created the shadow line that was requested. Staff is still concerned that a
couple things are not resolved. No additional breathing room has been given
to the Genre building and architecturally it is not appropriate to butt up
against that building. Genre is an historic landmark and this building is not.
Staff also feels that the side walls have not been resolved. They have been
pulled in on the lower but not the full depth of the building. The Planning
Office feels strongly that the view plane is important and HPC should take
that concept of negligible impact very seriously.
Charles Cunniffe, architect stated that HPC verbalized that if we reduce the
plate height by a foot then the view plane would be anon-issue at the last
meeting. We have cut off some square feet and cut down the plate heights to
accomplish that. We are now down to a 3.3 in the view plane. The view
plane is a sliding view plane. Charles pointed out that when the cottages on
Main Street come before HPC they will want to add two stories.
The second issue is the breaking up the front facade and we have
accomplished that.
11
~~tly i2,2b0(o
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION C011-IIVIISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12. 2006
Derek expressed his appreciation to the applicant for all the work and time
that has gone into this project. When the view plane was set the ordinances
and codes of the city as far as massing and height restrictions have
drastically changed. The view plane and codes do not correspond together.
The view plane has outdated itself. This building is sympathetic to the view
plane and the massing and scale are appropriate and comply with our
guidelines. Regarding the relationship of Genre and the rest of the street's
energies, obviously the building relates more to the Genre bldg. because that
is the historical building that will not be going anywhere. Derek said he is
onboard for conceptual approval.
Jason said the changes have improved the project. Unfortunately we are in
conflict with our guidelines regarding buildings being on the street front.
The only concern is the upper story and possibly it could be broken up a
little and pulled in more.
Sarah said the changes are moving in the right direction. Regarding the
glass block there are better ways to address that opening that is so prevalent
on the street. Regarding the view plane she agrees that it is a sympathetic
proposal. We as a commission should not be putting dimensional
requirements on applicants. Pushing back the door along the Genre side is
very successful. Hopefully the awning isn't out all the time so that the
corner is more apparent on the street.
Jeffrey said the suggestion of pulling away the wall to express the Genre
historic wall is a noble effort and he encourages the same for the western
side. The view plane conceptually works. He also agreed that a jog or notch
would help the rear fagade as far as the view plane. The improvements to
the front fagade aze sympathetic to our guidelines. Our commission strives
to create a greater sepazation but in fact it pushes the building further into
the view plane. The lightness and thinness of the penthouse is
commendable.
Charles said we might be able to put actual windows on the west side of the
building with the idea that if the Range building gets rebuilt we would have
to put a wall in.
MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve Resolution #18, 2006 for 308 E.
Hopkins Ave. as proposed tonight with the condition that they have to come
back for final in a year or ask for an extension in the required time frame;
13
C ~ Q
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS TWO GROWTH MANAGEMENT
REVIEWS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH
CONDITIONS SUBDIVISION FOR 308 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M AND N,
BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
PARCEL N0.2737-073-29-007.
RESOLUTION NO. 18 SERIES OF 2007
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from J.
W. Venture, LLC represented by Vann Associates, LLC, requesting approval of two (2)
Growth Management Reviews and Subdivision Review to construct amixed-use building
consisting of 2,745 square feet of commercial space, 2 free-mazket residential units and 3
affordable housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Commercial Design Review Approval from
the Historic Preservation Commission on July 12, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Viewplane Review Approval fora 3 foot 3
inch intrusion into the Hotel Jerome Viewplane from the Historic Preservation
Commission on July 12, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standazds,
the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 17, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.18, Series of 2007, by a five to one (5 -1)
vote, approving two Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed-use
building that includes commercial space, free market and affordable housing,
recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision to
construct amixed-use building consisting of two (2) free-mazket residential unit and
2,745 square feet of commercial space located on the property at 308 E. Hopkins Ave,
Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the
approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fords that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze.
~ p.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions a
Growth Management Review for the development of a mixed-use building; a Growth
Management Review for the development offree-market housing; a Grow[h Management
Review for the development of affordable housing for the property located at Lots M and
N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The use mix and dimensional
requirements shall comply with the CC zone district, as included in the chart below.
Specific squaze footage requirements may be amended, pursuant to compliance with the
CC zone district.
;~D : ~ .~~ra~~sed 12imeat6rto~al ~ ,~~lnderlyi~effime "et
x
'
~e~ _'
~
=
...
`...,:a..,..,
Minimum Lot 6,032 sq. ft. No requirement
Size
Minimum Lot 60 Feet No requirement
Width
Minimum Lot N/A No requirement
Area/Dwellin
Minimum 0 Feet No requirement
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum Side 0 Feet No requirement
Yard Setback
Minimum Reaz 0 Feet No requirement except trash/utility service azea
Yazd Setback shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to
Section 26.575.060
Maximum Building: 35 Feet along Hopkins 42 feet for all aeeas of the property.
Height Ave, measured to the top of the
third floor 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from
lot lines adjoining a Street ri ht-of--way.
Minimum N/A No requirement
Distance
between
Buildings on
Lot
Pedestrian Providing 8% onsite and cash-in- Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Amenit S ace lieu fee for 17% _ $51,272 Amenity
Section 2: Plat and Agreement
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City
Council grant subdivision approval and that, should City Council grant subdivision
,~ ~~ ~
~.. ..,J •
approval, the Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of such
approval. If Subdivision approval is granted by City Council, the final Condominium Plat
may be approved and signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial
completion of construction.
Section 3: Buildine Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly
the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit
submittal.
e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and
drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements.
The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The
construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will
be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging azeas will be
identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during
construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm
run off must be addressed.
f A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
permit submittal plan.
g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted Building Code
requirements.
h. An approved Landscape Plan.
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The building as presented in the plans contained within the application complies with the
dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core (CC) zone• district. Compliance with
these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of
building permit submittal.
Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness
regulations pertaining to size and security.
Section 6: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter
The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standazds and ADA
requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans
that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a
Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development.
~ ~p.~
Section 7: Affordable HousinE
The affordable housing units shall be deed restricted as Category 4 rentals with the
capability of converting into ownership units if the owners would request this change or
APCHA deems the units out of compliance for a period of more than one year. If the
units become "for sale" due to the aforementioned conditions, they will be listed with the
Housing Office at Category 4 maximum sales prices.
Section 8: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements
a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the
District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear
water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing
establishment; Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building
permit; even though the commercial space will be tenant-finished, interceptors will be
required at this time if food processing establishments aze anticipated for this project.
d. Oil and Sand sepazators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shaft
drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors.
e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require
installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shazed
service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a
single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or
right of ways.
£ Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping
may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
h. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and dischazge
of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol
storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
i. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines.
j. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow
calculations.
~-
Section 10: Exterior Liehtin¢
~.
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 11: Landscaaine
a. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of
the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in
this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility
connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not
encroach into the tree protection zones.
b. Prior to any the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be
approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through
cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees.
c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the
building permit set.
d. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under
the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service
company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees
located on adjacent properties.
Section 12: Park Develonmeut and TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a park
development impact fee and aTDM/Air Quality impact fee prior to building permit
issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code
Section 26.610.09 0, Fee Schedule.
Section 13: Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity, the Applicant shall
pay acash-in-lieu fee for pedestrian amenity in the amount equal to seventeen (17%)
percent of the lot area, as the applicant is providing eight percent (8%) on site, prior to
building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation:
Lot area = 6,032 square feet
17% of Lot Area = 1,025.44 square feet
Payment = $50 x 1025.44 square feet
Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu = $51,272,
Section 14: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall
pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the
calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit
submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site
improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site.
Section 15: Reconstruction Credits Deadline Extension
The one (1) year deadline for the reconstruction of existing commercial net leasable
credits, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070.A, is hereby extended to two (2)
years to accommodate the projects' additional approval requirements.
Section 16•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public heazing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 17:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 18:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 17~'
day of April, 2007.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jim True, City Attorney
ATTEST:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Ruth Kruger, Chair
4
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
~ioe~.I~Pk;~K
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review Committee
From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer
Date: February 14, 2007
Re: 308 East Hopkins Avenue, La Cocina Building
~i~l' ~s
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Redevelopment request at their
February 14, 2007 meeting and has compiled the following comments:
Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.; Tricia Aragon, Adam Trzcinski and Aaron
Reed, City Engineering; Jessica Garrow, City Planning; Denis Murray, City Building; Ed
VanWalraven, Fire District; Tom Bracewell, ACSD; Blake Fitch, Parking; Cindy
Christensen, Housing; Todd Grange, Zoning; Brian Flynn, Parks; Steve Hunter, Public
Works, Sunny Vann, Applicant Rep.
Buildiug Departmeut -Denis Murray;
• No storage allowed in any hallways within the structure.
• Exiting on the upper level of the building needs to be addressed. The current
submission does not meet code requirements.
• Typical Construction Management Plans (CMP) and Stabilization planes need to
be submitted in accordance with the City requirements.
Fire Protection District-Ed VanWalraven;
Fire protection systems must meet the requirements of NFPA 72 and NFPA l3.
The application states on page 24 that "a utility/service area measuring twenty
feet by ten feet has been provided at the rear of the building and abutting alley."
The International Fire Code has specific requirements regarding combustible
waste materials and containers IFC Section 304.3; my concern is size of the
proposed containers and proximity to the structure.
Engineering Department -Tricia Aragon, Adam Trzcinski and Aaron Reed;
• The project CMP needs to be well throughout and complete because of the nature
of this confined building area.
• Location of the construction dumpster need to have the location identified and
approved before construction. Additionally, any potential crane placements, tower
crane preferred, need to pre approved by Engineering and a protected sidewalk
structure will likely be needed for the duration of the construction activities.
• No stabilization will be permitted in the City ROW adjacent to the alley or
Hopkins.
• Storm runoff will need to be addressed.
Page 3 of 4 ~°'~ `"'`~
February 14, 2007
308 East Hopkins Avenue, La Cocina
General Requirements:
• There were no calculations and mention of Park Dedications Fees, fees will be
required as calculated during submittal of building permit.
• Landscapint? and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of
way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements. Improvements to
the ROW should include new grass, irrigation and possibly replacement of the
street trees. These impacts should be planned in a way to minimize any root
cutting. Plans for the improvements will need to be completed and conceptually
approved prior to building permit submittal.
**Applicaut may be required to increase the size of the sidewalk area based on
further review by the Engineering and Parks Department. These changes and
improvements will be included iu the applicant's requirements for approval.
Public Works -Steve Hunter;
• New standards are being developed and will apply to this project. It will be
necessary to familiarize the design team prior to building permit submittal.
Community Development Engineer -Alex Evonitz;
• If snowmelt is proposed for the sidewalk, no snowmelt runoff is allowed to
release into City ROW.
• A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
permit submittal plan.
Aspen Consolidated Waste District -Tom Bracewell;
• Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
• ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water
connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
• On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
• Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food-processing
establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building
permit.
• Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments.
• Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
• Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
• Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer
line according to specific ACSD requirements and before any and all soil
stabilization measures are attempted.
• Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
• One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be
required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
,.-~ ,~,
REMINDERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS:
The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use
submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the
following comments and reminders:
TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area
has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend rec~ng containers be present
wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City of Aspen's new
Waste Reduction Ordinance, Chapter 12.06.
Given the Environmental Health Department's experience with businesses in the
commercial core, a dumpster for cardboard will be need. For the type of uses proposed
for this building, a total of at least 20-27* square feet of the utility/trash service area is
recommended for recycling facilities. This may require the use of two parking spaces,
such that both the users and the trash and recycling haulers can easily access the
containers.
* One 90-gallon toter = 2"x2.5" (Ssq. fr.). Need one for each: co-mingled, office paper,
newspaper = ]Ssq: ft. Cardboard - At minimum could use atoter = Ssq. ft and at most
need a cardboard dumpster = 12sq.ft (3"x4").
The applicant is also advised that with the new Waste Reduction Ordinance
recycling services will be included with any trash hauling service contracted during
construction. It is important that the applicant plan for adequate space for recycling
during the construction of the project. Recycling services will include the following
recyclable material: Cardboard, Co-mingled (plastic bottles, aluminum, steel cans and
glass bottles), Newspaper and Office Paper.
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 18-04-01 "The city council finds and declares that
noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and
increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents
of the City of Aspen and to its visitors. Noise has an adverse effect on the psychological
and physiological well being of persons, thus constituting a present danger to the
economic and aesthetic well-being of the community. "
During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standazds, and
construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru
Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays.
It is definite that noise generated during the demolition and construction phase of this
project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. A construction noise
suppression plan must be submitted at time of first building plans and/or demolition
plans submittal.
ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial
building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a
~ ~/
MEMORANDUM ,
TO: Jessica Ganow
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing
DATE: March 7, 2007
RE: LA COCINA REDEVELOPMENT; 308 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-29-007
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to redevelop the property located at 308 East
Hopkins Avenue, previously the La Cocina Restaurant.
BACKGROUND: The property is located at 308 East Hopkins Avenue. The proposed
development requests the demolition of the existing structure with replacement of a new three-
story, mixed use commercial/residential building to include the following:
• Basement level to include a storage azea along with a space for a potential future
commercial use.
• The ground floor will be devoted entirely for a commercial use and is proposed as a new
restaurant. Currently, the applicant is proposing the relocation of the Syzygy restaurant to
this spot.
• The second level is to contain three employee-housing units (two one-bedroom units and
one studio unit) and one free-market, one-bedroom unit. The free-mazket unit will contain
approximately 1,447 square feet of net livable area. The two one-bedroom employee-
housing units will contain approximately 750 and 768 squaze feet of net livable area, while
the studio unit will contain approximately 594 squaze feet. The three employee housing
units mitigate at a total of 4.75 employees (1.25 for the studio unit and 3.5 for the two one-
bedroom units).
• The third floor will consist of athree-bedroom, free-mazket residential unit to contain
approximately 3,500 square feet of net livable area.
MITIGATION REO UIREMENTS:
Free-Market Mitigation Requirement: Under Section 26.470.040(C)(6), affordable housing must
equal to 30% of the additional free-market floor azea that is provided in a manner acceptable to
APCHA. The floor azea calculations for the two free-market residential units contain
approximately 5,994 square feet of total floor azea. This figure includes a pro rata shaze of the
building's non-unit floor area (e.g., corridors, stairway) as instructed by the Community
1
~ c~~i~~ ~ ~~~~a L
~~ ~~ _IdM~M~M/hT
~ , ` 1 ~-~'IVtbl o `~'~ t~
~~- ~--~~ ~rt~oy~s.
Gw+m~f• ~ - 2,~~ ~ 1~ cam(.
~~~~~~
~-
G~qs ~ ~rul o~'v~M
~~ -~,+~
• UI n~ I ~, `,/,~/
~.~ ~%t'
~~ l'YW~i v
LU.G = ~lytc ~i~~ ~ .
~'~~ ingci~es
2 ~c
1-~
~b~, r ~ ~tr,-- Vuuwi~ntivwri~ 1 ~1~ ~ ~-f
Zlly~ ~y~o~,_l .
h~~~t~vih'~ ~ Al(~
v ~~
crr-~( ~I
M
u
REQUIItED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 3 ~ ~ ~ ' '~ ~ K. 1 ~ S ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: M JiftG t4' Z o ~ , 200
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, ~,d„~~/ ~R ~E4e~fl- t nt 6~T c ^I (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to
the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section
26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen band Use Code in the following manner.
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation
in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting ojnotice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department,
which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26)
inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the ~ day of M AOctf , 200, to and
including the date and fime of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains
the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the
public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within
three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners
shall be those on the current tax records of Pitldn County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the
public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended
incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an
accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shallbe waived. However, the proposed caning map shall be available for
public inspection in the planning agency during all business horms for en (15) prior two the p_ubl~ic hearing on such
amendments. ~ _ - ---- ~i....t u~
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" car
of~Ctf _.200~by
WITNESS MY
ATTACHMENTS:
COPYOF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SICtVJ
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL
~Y:~.._
f -o t'n
..8++@@~~
~r9~ Q
s~P .Oh~
;.
_>
~.~,~`
f #?
j =,
5
-~
}
e
~# ~
~f'
ra
s,..;:;
a~aii".
6,§S'
C ~;-
~:
r'~~
a,
4'.
I
~~
1
f
1 ~ti 1
~_.~. i
~.
~' r ~.
~~,
+~ f
,,eir ~ ,
j; ;;'_
„~
•~
.4
~iJ;'
s` ~: `:~
,l.e
~'
~~ -~
~.,., w.~
ATTACHMENT?
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: %~~ ~,[•~~i .r~ ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: / -~~ Za , 200?
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, ~--+"+'~~ ~~~~ (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of
200_, to and including the date and time of the public
heazing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Depaztment, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public heazing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
~ ~~~
~,. ~~
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all busin s hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendme~t~
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this ~ day
of ~~-GI-~' , 200, by ; rU/~.J 1~1 ~rX~(S~nJ
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
~'OP,.•••~ .., y %; My commission expi (Ir - ~- ~U
~OTARy `'•: _
Nf'••.. PUB~~G• • ~ Q \ tary Public
~ G/v/~~i ~ ~ i~ F i ~ C \ O \ o \ `~~' ~
""'~sfon Exp~~
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE P UBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
,C
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 308 EAST HOPHINS AVE (LA COCINA), GROWTH MANAGEMENT
REVIEW, AND SUBDIVISION REVIEW -- PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 20,
2007, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to review an
application for Growth Management, and Subdivision at 308 E. Hopkins Avenue,
commonly known as the La Cocina. The subject property is legally described as Lots M,
and N, Block 80, of the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact
Jessica Garrow at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO (970) 429-2780, (or jessicaena.ci.aspen.co.us).
s/Ruth K,rueer, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on March 4, 2007
City of Aspen Account
AN3AV-O'JOOB~I uo!y~nnsu!.P
wm~4ane•NUUm ap!na; el za;!nsuol^,
1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC ~~++
215 S MONARCH SUITE 104
ASPEN, CO 81611
AEP FAMILY LLL 3.9389931%
C/O ANDREW V HECHT GARFIELD 8
HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M
PO BOX 1365
ASPEN, CO 81612
CENTRE OF ASPEN LLC 54.6248989%
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
205 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
DAVIDSON DONALD W
864 CEMETERY LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
DOLE MARGARET M
C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
CEDARIDGE
PO BOX 8455
ASPEN, CO 81612
FREDRICK LARRY D
ROBERTS JANET A
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLDEN ARTS CONNECTION LLC
ASPEN INTERNATIONAL ART DBA
213 S MILL ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
GRAND FINALE LTD
PO BOX 32
ASPEN, CO 81612
T ®0915®A213A11/1~,
}uawafueya ap sua5 ®09L5 ®AN3Atl 3!iege6 al zas!I!~D
~ "~'° salad @ sa~~e; sauanbq~
y:
303 EAST MAIN LLLP 316 EAST HOPKINS LP
PO BOX 8016 RYANCO INC
ASPEN, CO 81612 1220 N STADEM DR
TEMPE, AZ 85281-1857
ALPINE PETROLEUM LLC BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER
435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 10370
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
BRINING ROBERT D CC ASPEN LLC
215 S MONARCH #203 75-5706 HANAMA PL #104
ASPEN, CO 81611 KAILUA-KONA, HI 96740
CITY OF ASPEN CLARK FAMILY TRUST
130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 362
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION DAVID DOGWOOD LLC
PO BOX 32 C/O LOWELL MEYER
ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED DENSON JAMES D
215 S MONARCH #104 PO BOX 1614
ASPEN, CO 81611 TUBAC, AZ 85646
FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC FORGE PARTNERSHIP
240 S MILL ST STE 201 PO BOX 2914
ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621
GALENA PLAZA LLC 30.3845777% GILBERT LEONE 2.7624071%
CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESQ CO/RONALD GARFIELD ESQ
601 E HYMAN AVE 601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLDSTEIN PETER 8 ALAN GOODING RICHARD L
150 METRO PK #2 4800 S HOLLY ST
ROCHESTER, NY 14623 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC GRANITE TRUST LLC 61.668%
C/O CARL B LINNECKE CPA PC C/O KATIE REED MANAGEMENT
215 S MONARCH ST #101 2108 S MONARCH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
Tarnleai Ind ~3 ao; jaded P~iT ®0915 311I1dW31®tiany asD
~ •mue unmruicw wac ~ slagel load IIse3
Aa3Atl-O900B-L a0p~ru;sul,p ;uawaWey~ ap .+a5
war~Gaaevuw~m aptna; el zagnsuof "` ~
HALL CHARLES L fir` HANSEN STEVE 11.8169824%
PO BOX 1819 CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESQ
ASPEN, CO 81612 601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
HIGH DESERT NEWSPAPERS INC
500 DOUBLE EAGLE CT
RENO, NV 89521
HOTELJEROMEINC
C/O EVEREST CHRISTY G
9000 N BROADWAY
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73114
KATIE REED INVESTORS LLC
PARTNERS IN KATIE REED LLC
210 B S MONARCH
ASPEN, CO 81611
KREVOY SUSANNE SEPARATE PROP
TRST
2311 LA MESA DR
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLC
C/O M & W PROPERTIES
205 S MILL ST STE 301A
ASPEN, CO 81611
MSJ PROPERTIES LLC 50%
302 E HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO 81611
OBRIEN MAUREEN
215 S MONARCH ST G102
ASPEN, CO 81611
PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC
215 S MONARCH ST STE 203
ASPEN, CO 81611
HILLIS OF SNOWMASS INC
170 E GORE CRK
VAIL, CO 81657
JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K
51 OVERLOOK DR
ASPEN, CO 81611-1008
KATIE REED INVESTORS LLC 33.332%
C/O GARFIELD 8 HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
MAIN & MILL LLC
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 61612
MONARCH BUILDING LLC
PO BOX 126
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
MTN ENTERPRISES 806
C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS
170 GARE CRK DR
VAIL, CO 81657
ORR ROBERT L
500 PATTERSON RD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
PARTNERS IN KATIE REED LLC 5%
C/0 GARFIELD 8 HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS TWO LLC RACZAK JOSEPH S & JANET L
C/O LOWELL MEYER 0234 LIGHT HILL RD
PO BOX 1247 SNOWMASS, CO 81654
ASPEN, CO 81612
®09L5 ®AL3Atl;uege6 al zas!8;D
salad @ sayae; sauanb~
HART GEORGE DAVID 8 SARAH C
PO BOX 5491
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
HOFFMAN JOHN & SHARON
210 W 5TH ST APT 211
KANSAS CITY, MO 64105-1166
KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY
TRUST #1
216 SEVENTEENTH ST
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
KELLY GARY
PO BOX 12356
ASPEN, CO 81612
MEEKER RICHARD J AND ALLISON D
0752 MEADOWOOD DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
MOTHER LODE INVESTORS LLC
620 E HYMAN AVE #1E
ASPEN, CO 81611
OBRIEN MAUREEN
1370 MAIN ST
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
OSA TRUST 50%
C/O KREVOY SUSANNE BELZBERG
2311 LA MESA DR
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
PETERSON BROOKE A 50%
302 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
SEGUIN WILLIAM L
PO BOX 4274
ASPEN, CO 81612
T ~ Tam;eat load ~(se3 ~o jade T ®0915 31tlIdW31 ~Gaay asB
i ®09L5®A~~f/ ICJ i sue uon~nnsw aac ~ d r'~i ~ slagel load ~e3
AN3Atl-O9-008-L uo!3~MSUI.P
uroa ~4ane•NUinm alllna; el zafinsu~
d
SMITH ASPEN QEAA LLC
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 61612
THE ISIS BUILDING LLC
205 S MILL ST # 301A
ASPEN, CO 81611
WARREN DOGWOOD LLC
C/O LOW ELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
WILLIAMS DEXTER M
82 W LUPINE DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
iuawa6iey~ a!-•sua5 ®09L5 ®AL3Atl ilaege6 a! zasll!ln
~ salad ~ salpe; sauanbg~
w
SSM LAND AQUISITION CO LLC THALBERG KATHARINE
2121 KIRBY DR #99 221 E MAIN ST
HOUSTON, TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81611
TRUE JAMES R
215 S MONARCH #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
WELLS FARGO BANK
C/O DELOITTE TAX LLP
PO BOX 2609
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
WITEK ROBERT J
215 S MONARCH #G-103
ASPEN, CO 81611
VAIL FINE ART GALLERY INC
PO BOX 1953
EDWARDS, CO 81632
WENDELIN ASSOC
150 METRO PARK
ROCHESTER, NY 14623
T ^^ Tam3eailaad~(se ~o jade T ®09L531tl1dW31~anyasD
i ®09L5®A~~t/1~/l ~ ~ 3 /• dPaadi
.n 1 main unn~n new aae - 1 SlaUel IaaA /lse7
ATTACHMENT?
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~ Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: , 200"
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County of Pitl{in )
I, ( I l `~C1 I (~ V ` l~l~t, ~ ~ t/ L'~ .' (name, please print)
bein or representing an Applicant to the Ciry of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner.,
Publication of nofrce: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
'yayei Gr a paper of general C'uciiiatlvn in the Ciij of Armen at least fifteea (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of nonce: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitab9e,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and whicfi was composed of letfers nQ~`
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15~j days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the ~ day of
200 to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Co*n*n nsty
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid iI.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeazed no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
repwlation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the azea of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such~am,~eAnd~ments. r
Signature
~.'
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was aclmo ledged before me this o~ay
of , 200~bY ~~SSICs~ 9'~}Q(~~(~1.
Publielmd in Me Aspen Tlmes WeekN on June 24,
2om.(allosn -
wTTIvr.SS MY ri?.rvJ"J Alvi7 GrriCIAI, SrAL
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE~. 3b8 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE (FORMERLY
LAenOivmN~~REVIPN PIUBLICIHEAR NGAND
My commission
TTACFIll~NTS:
COPY OF THE P UBL ICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
Y Ft~:
JACKI~
LOTHIAN
J/
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
yT.licheel~n CIIY Cou~l
°_ ~'~
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 308 EAST HOPHINS AVENUE (FORMERLY LA COCINA),
CONDOMINIUMIZATION AND SUBDIVISION REVIEW -- PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, July 9,
2007, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to review an application for
Condominiumization and Subdivision at 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots M, and N, Block
80, City and Townsite of Aspen. The applicant is JW Ventures, LLC, P.O. Box 8769,
Aspen, CO, 81612. For further infonnation, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen
Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429-2778, (or
saraa(c~ci.aspen.co.us).
s/Michael C. Ireland, Mavor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on June, 24, 2007
City of Aspen Account
REC~~VED
JUN 2 5 2007
g~p~ ~pARTMENT
p ~
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review Committee
From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer
Date: February 14, 2007
Re: 308 East Hopkins Avenue, La Cocina Building
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Redevelopment request
at their February 14, 2007 meeting and has compiled the following comments:
Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.; Tricia Aragon, Adam Trzcinski and
Aaron Reed, City Engineering; Jessica Garrow, City Planning; Denis Murray, City
Building; Ed VanWalraven, Fire District; Tom Bracewell, ACSD; Blake Fitch, Parking;
Cindy Christensen, Housing; Todd Grange, Zoning; Brian Flynn, Parks; Steve
Hunter, Public Works, Sunny Vann, Applicant Rep.
Building Department -Denis Murray;
• No storage allowed in any hallways within the structure.
• Exiting on the upper level of the building needs to be addressed. The
current submission does not meet code requirements.
• Typical Construction Management Plans jCMP) and Stabilization planes
need to be submitted in accordance with the City requirements.
Fire Protection District-Ed VanWalraven;
• Fire protection systems must meet the requirements of NFPA 72 and NFPA
13.
• The project dumpster location appears to present and access issue.
Engineering Department-Tricia Aragon, Adam Trzcinski and Aaron Reed;
• The project CMP needs to be well throughout and complete because of
the nature of this confined building area.
• Location of the construction dumpster need to have the location
identified and approved before construction. Additionally, any potential
crane placements, tower crane preferred, need to pre approved by
Engineering and a protected sidewalk structure will likely be needed for
the duration of the construction activities.
• No stabilization will be permitted in the City ROW adjacent to the alley or
Hopkins.
• Storm runoff will need to be addressed. If that runoff increases fees may
apply.
• No closures will be allowed for Hopkins or the alley for construction
activities.
Page 3 of 3
February 14, 2007
308 East Hopkins Avenue, La Cocina
connection. New water taps and lines will need to be installed with
a boring under the existing parkway planting.
General Requirements:
• There were no calculations and mention of Park Dedications Fees,
fees will be required as calculated during submittal of building
permit.
Landscaoina and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the
public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements. Improvements to the ROW should include new grass,
irrigation and possibly replacement of the street trees. These
impacts should be planned in a way to minimize any root cutting.
Plans for the improvements will need to be completed and
conceptually approved prior to building permit submittal.
**Applicant may be required to increase the size of the sidewalk area
based on further review by the Engineering and Parks Department. These
changes and improvements will be included in the applicant's
requirements for approval.
Public Works-Steve Hunter;
• New standards are being developed and will apply to this project.
It will be necessary to familiarize the design team prior to building
permit submittal.
Community Development Engineer -Alex Evonitz;
• If snowmelt is proposed for the sidewalk, no snowmelt runoff is
allowed to release into City ROW.
• A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to
be part of the permit submittal plan.
Aspen Consolidated Waste District -Tom Bracewell;
• The new oil and grease separator appears to be under the trash
area. A relocation of that separator might be considered.
f/
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Paul Smith * Chairman
Michael Kelly * Vice- Chair
John Keleher * Sec/Treas
February 15, 2007
Jessica Garrow
Community Development
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: La Cocina
Dear Jessica:
Frank Loushin
Roy Holloway
Bruce Matherly, Mgr
We have reviewed the land use application for La Cocina and a copy of our comments on the
application are attached. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
attachment
Frog ~ Z~::i
L
565 N. Mi11 St., Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 /FAX (970)925-2537
c
DRC Comments La Cocina February 14, 2007
ACSD Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's Hiles, regulations, and specifications, which
aze on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that cleaz water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter, patio drains) aze not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD
Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations
of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit.
Oil and Sand sepazators aze required for parking gazages and vehicle maintenance establishments.
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to
specific ACSD requirements and before any and all soil stabilization measures aze attempted.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shazed service line agreements may be required where more than
one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements aze prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will
require approval by ACSD where soft and hazd landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to
be dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop
an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of
the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be
assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional
proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the azea of concern in order to
fund the improvements needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the
existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the
costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund
the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the azea of concern (only for the material cost difference
for lazger line).
~i
Where main sanitary sewer lines aze required to serve this new development or the existing publicly
owned sewer system requires modiScation or adjustment, a line extension request and collection
system agreement aze required. Both aze ACSD Board of D'irector's action items.
Applicant will be requved to deposit funds with the district for construction costs, engineering fees,
construction observation fees, fees to clean and televise the new main sewer line extension into the
project.
The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated budding stubouts prior
to building permit.
'The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and dischazge of glycol to any
portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage azeas must have approved
containment facilities.
Soil Nails aze not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines or within 3 feet below a
district owned main sanitary sewer line.
.~ Page 1 of 1
C ..%
Sara Adams
From: Jessica Garrow
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 3:03 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: FW: La Cocina
Jessica Garrow, Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
970.429.2780
From: Jannette Murison
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:08 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: La Cocina
~i ,~essica,
~eot the La Cocina Land use aPPicatio n. ~ am not sure what you need more from me besides the
boi~erp~atc E h comments since ~mpact Fees wi~~ be associated with this application. Pease het me know i~
you need the boilerplate ~h comments.
Thank you and have a nice weekend.
,~annette Murison
jenior environmental healthjpecia~ist
(amity o~ /~spen
970-9 zo-5069
www.aspenpitkin.com
3/9/2007
__ _ _ _
-~ -- ___ f_~a
1: ~ ~~ -e ----_
-~Y __ __ __ _ __
-- -
--
`~ _._
--
~-~o~7~e-~_y
~_T
G~: ~~
>r~1~a~ ~ -~Scmn~ --
~-7~~ G~VI ~_
___ "~
U ~~
---
~/ ~A An ~~ 1
-- --- . .
- -- ----
-
a -~ - - _ -- ~ ----- ---
-- - -
M
---
---- -------- -- - ------ I~ - - `Q ~ ~~
-
---t o c ~~ ~~ -------
----
-
~~~-
---- -- -,
3
_~°
~,~.' al`s ~~,~~i~ ~~U~} ~_ ~ 'P~, N~ _~{~W!!P~~--
--
~~~~ ~ ~ ~ c1~1 w~1S~-
.~
v , I
KRABACHER I SANDERS RC.
gttO0.VEY$>NOGfUN4"ct QPS AT L1W
R. Jaaean aaoemar
jkrabadwr@krabnchet.wm
B. JOSBFh KrAWd+eY
Gave R. $a11ftC15
Jennitar M. Causing
Diana O. Emirget
Rapa,t S. Moew.r
Devia T Haney
J Pahkk BOIanC'
./82'fftB /IYk~Qeat W~k]~.y
101 N. MILL STREET SVITE 201
ASPEN, COLORA00916tt-Y 55J
TI9T0! 92&l33W
F(9T0192S-0t81
email: krebacher~M,abacher wm
lmemet vrww.krabaFher.cwn
April 17, 2007
Charles Cunniffe
Charles Curmiffe Architects
610 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen CO 81611
Re: La Cocina Redevelopment Plan
308 East Hopkins, Aspen CO 81611
Charles:
LB~AS451NIEC
Cheryl M. lkiberypr
Sheyn 0. McFerkrM
I am the President of the corporate general partner of 316 East Hopkins, L.P., the
owner of the property located at 316 East Hopkins currently occupied by the Lulu Wilson
restaurant.
This letter will confirm that 316 East Hopkins, L.P. is in favor of, and supports,
the proposed redevelopment of the La Cocina property at 308 East Hopkins, Aspen,
Colorado. The design of the proposed La Cocina Redevelopment project is consistent
with the historical character of our property, and the developer has taken the necessary
steps to ensure that there will be no adverse impacts to our property during the
construction of the La Cocina Redevelopment project
You are authorized to present this letter to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission at its meeting on April 17, 2007, to review the La Cocina Redevelopment
project.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
cc: 316 East Hopkins, L.P
KRABACHER~SANDERSP.C.
By. ~~~-_
B. Joseph Krabacher
{oooasstz.ooc i t}
r
,,.~ -. Page 1 of 1
.,,, ,J
Charles:
In accordance with our discussions, and based on the following items, I'm attaching a letter in support of the La Cocina redevelopment project.
1. We agree to cooperate and coordinate with you in the excavation and installation of your foundation. You (ie., the developer) will be
responsible for supporting the historic portion of our building, and the crawl space located beneath the historic portion of our building by the
underpinning or some other mutually acceptable method so that our building does not suffer any settlement or loss of lateral or subjacent
support.
2. Likewise, we agree to cooperate and coordinate with you in the excavation and installation of the foundation where we have our new
basement. Our new basement depth is approximately 12 feet 3 inches, and appears that your plan goes approximately 2 feet deeper. You will
be responsible for underpinning or some other mutually acceptable method so that our building does not suffer any settlement or loss of lateral
or subjacent support.
3. You will support our eave on the west side of our building, and construct a canopy that will divert snow loads and drainage to somewhere
other than the space between the buildings.
4. Prior to construction, your team will be authorized to investigate the ability of the soils adjacent to our building, and to access our crawl
space to investigate the foundation under the historic building. During construction, we will monitor the construction and may need to address
issues that come up once the construction begins.
Essentially, we have no problem supporting your application, we just want to make sure that we do not suffer any damage to our building,
foundation or basement.
Thanks -Joe
B. Joseph Krabacher
KRABACHER ~ SANDERS, P.C.
201 N. Mill Street, Suite 201
Aspen CO 81611
(970) 925 6300
(970) 925 1181 fax
ila'abacherna krabacher.com
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS
INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS
NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT; YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR
COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN
ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY AND RET'CJRN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE SENDER. THANK YOU.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service,
we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
ait ~i~nm
'f
r ~ ,
.. _.~.
_.. S._:'. ..^..+t
`i'
• ~ #
~~
F
_.. ..
~_-
«~
~~
n
i
~ ~~ r .
-=~ ~ _
~.
~ ~ y
~~ ~ ~~ ~.s
t ~ ~_
~~..
~'~
.R~
'L; .. .. p ...
r _ ~ ~ ,
M
^v..a.
~ ~~
Y •~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
~.
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner
RE: 308 East Hopkins Avenue (previously La Cocina) Redevelopment- Subdivision
and Growth Management Review for Free Market Residential Units and
Affordable Housing- Resolution No. ,Series 2007 -Public HearinH (Parcel
2737-073-29-007)
DATE: April 17, 2007
APPLICANT/OWNER: This development project is not subject to the
J. W. Venture, LLC Moratorium (Ordinance #19 of 2006) because it entered
the planning process prior to the April 25, 2006
REPRESENTATIVE: adoption of the Moratorium.
Vann Associates, LLC; Charles
Cunniffe Architects; and Oates STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Knezevich & Gardenswartz, PC. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the project, with conditions.
LOCATION:
Lots M and N, Block 80 City and
Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly
known as 308 East Hopkins Avenue.
CURRENT ZONING aS: USE
Located in the Commercial Core (CC)
zone district containing a two story
commercial building with 2,745 sq. fr.
of net leasable commercial space.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to develop
a three story mixed-use building
comprising: commercial space (a
restaurant) on the first floor with 2,512
sq. ft. net leasable area (NLA); three
affordable housing units and one free
market unit on the second floor; and
one free market unit on the third floor.
Please note that the applicant intends
to pursue GMQS allotments, once the
moratorium is lifted, to develop a
portion of the basement storage area
into commercial net leasable space.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve Growth Management for two (2)
free-market units and three (3) affordable housing units
as part of the mixed use redevelopment, and
recommend subdivision approval to the City Council.
Page - 1 - of 6
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning
Commission to redevelop the site:
• Growth Management Review for Free-Market Residential Units within aMixed-Use
Proiect in the development of new free-mazket residential units within amixed-use
project pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.6. (The Plannine and Zonine
Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the proposal).
• Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing in the development of affordable
housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.7. (The Planning and Zonine
Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the proposal).
The following land use requests will be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council:
• Subdivision and Condominiumization for the construction of multiple dwelling units
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (Gifu Council is the final review authority
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission).
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, J. W. Venture LLC, has requested the approvals necessary for the complete
redevelopment of an existing two story commercial building located at 308 East Hopkins
Avenue into a three story mixed use building. The 6,032 square foot lot (with alley access) is
located in the Commercial Core (CC) Historic District and was included as a contributing
historic resource to the District unti12001 (HPC Resolution 6) when it was "delisted" due to loss
of integrity. The historic context of 308 East Hopkins is partially intact: a modest miner's
cottage abuts the east property line, and the A.G. Sheppazd House is located two buildings to the
west, on the corner of Hopkins and Monarch Street. The applicant proposes the following:
^ The basement comprises a large storage area, two bathrooms, two elevators, and
stairways accessing the ground floor commercial space, second floor residences, and
a separate entrance onto Hopkins Avenue.
^ The storage space will potentially be converted into commercial space in the
future. 233 square feet of the basement commercial will be exempt from
GMQS as this constitutes the remainder of the existing commercial space.
Any additional net leasble azea will need GMQS review.
• The around floor contains 2,512 square feet of NLA for a restaurant that will seat
about 80 people, a bar area, the restaurant's kitchen, restrooms, and the restaurant's
food storage. An interior stairway leads to a small storage azea in the basement.
About 200 square feet (20' x 10') is provided at the reaz of the building for trash
utility service.
• The second floor is entirely residential- comprising three deed restricted affordable
housing units and one 1,447 square foot NLA free market unit. One 594 square foot
Page-2-of6
-~,
...
NLA studio and two (768 and 750 square feet NLA) single bedroom units complete
the affordable housing for the redevelopment. Stairways, elevators, decks and
circulation corridors are incorporated into the second floor plan.
The third floor contains one 3,500 square foot free market residence complete with
stairways, elevator, and deck space.
Table 1: Com arison of Pro osed vs. Re uired Dimensional Re uirements
~y~ _ ~~
£a +~~
'y .:.
Minimum Lot 6,032 sq. ft. No requirement
Size
Minimum Lot 60 ft. No requirement
Width
Minimum Lot N/A No requirement
Area/Dwelling
Minimum Front 0 fr. No requirement
Yard Setback
Minimum Side 0 ft. No requirement
Yard Setback
Minimum Rear 0 ft. No requirement except trash/utility service area
Yard Setback shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to
Section 26.575.060
Maximum Height 35 ft.- measured to the top of 42 feet for all areas of the property.
the third floor
View plane review was 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from
granted at HPC, including a lot lines adjoining a Street right-of--way.
variance fora 3.3' intrusion.
Minimum N/A No requirement
Distance between
Buildings on Lot
Pedestrian Providing 8%, as approved by Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Amenity Space HPC; Cash-in-Lieu fee for Amenity
17% or [ ($50 * 6,032 sq. fr. )
* 17%] _ $51,272
Page-3-of6
~~ „q al~r C ~
~a~~..,.
Floor Area Cumulative 7,238.4 sq. ft. Cumulative Maximum: Commercial: 1.5:1
Ratio (FAR) Maximum: or 1.5:1 3:1 up to 2:1 (with
18,096 sq. ft. affordable housing
or 3:1 increase)
N/A Lodging, Arts,
Cultural and Civic,
Public,
Recreational,
Academic uses: 3:1
N/A Affordable
Housing: No
limitation
6,032 sq. ft. or Free-Market: 1:1
1:1
Maximum Free-Market Unit: 2,000 sq. fr.
Residential Unit 1,447 sq. fr.(second floor unit) Note: The 2, 000 sq. ft. maximum permitted was
Size and established by Ordinance 12, Series 2006.
(sq. fr.) 3,500 sq. ft. (third floor unit) This application was submitted prior to the
passage of Ordinance 12, and is therefore not
re uired to abide by the 2, 000 sq. ft. maximum.
STAFF COMMENTS:
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS:
The Applicant is requesting two (2) separate growth management approvals to obtain sufficient
development allotments to construct the proposed project. The requests and the project's
compliance with the applicable review standards are discussed below:
1) Growth Management Approval for the Development of Free-Market Units There is no
residential component in the existing building; therefore, the two proposed free-mazket units
require growth management review. The development of free-market units in a mixed use
development requires affordable housing mitigation at 30% of the free-mazket floor area;
calculation is as follows:
5,994 sq. fr. of free-market FAR x 30% = 1,798 sq. ft.
Every four-hundred (400) squaze feet of affordable housing is equal to one (1) employee;
therefore, the applicant is providing housing for 4.5 employees: r
1, 798 sq. ft. / 400 sq. fr. = 4.5 employees ~(~(,~~ i ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~"/
The applicant proposes to exceed this requirement and house 4.75 employees on site,
comprising 2,287 square feet (2,112 squaze feet net livable) of affordable housing.
2) Growth Management Aouroval for the Development of Affordable Housing The Housing
Board reviewed the approval at their meeting held March 7, 2007 and recommended
approval with conditions. The Board prefers the units are "for sale" units sold through the
lottery system. However since the applicant proposes Category 4 rental units, the Board
Page-4-of6
~'
proposes that the units be deed restricted as Category 4 rental with the capability of
converting into ownership units if the owners would request this change or APCHA deems
the units out of compliance for a period of more than one year. If the units become "for sale"
due to the aforementioned conditions, they will be listed with the Housing Office at Category
4 maximum sales prices.
Staff finds that the Growth Management Standards are met and recommends approval of the
project.
SUBDIVISION:
The applicant proposes multi-family dwelling units and condominiumization of these units,
which requires subdivision review. Once construction is completed, the developer must file a
condominium plat and documents approvable by the Community Development Director.
In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the
applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050,
Review Standards. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the infll development goals
established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan.
SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATION:
Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code
Section 26.630, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for
school function or pay acash-in-lieu payment. The Applicant has proposed to pay acash-in-lieu
payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630.
Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that the
Applicant pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the
proposed development.
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
The Applicant is required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added
to the site and additional net leasable created, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park
Development Impact Fee. The Park Development Impact Fee for this project shall be calculated
at the time of building permit submittal.
Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that a Park
Development Impact Fee be paid prior to building permit issuance.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing
Department, Building Department and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed
application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when
appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of
the AACP, as well as, the applicable review standards in the City Land Use Code. Staff
recommends approval of the project.
Page-5-of6
~.~
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No._, Series of 2007, approving with conditions, the two
Growth Management Reviews under the purview of the Planning Commission and
recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the subdivision and
condominiumization of 308 Hopkins Ave."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B -Development Review Committee meeting minutes dated February 14, 2007
EXHIBIT C -Housing Referral dated March 7, 2007
EXHIBIT D -Application
EXHIBIT E -HPC Resolution 18, Series 2006, approving Demolition, HPC Conceptual,
Commercial Design Standards, Pedestrian Amenity, and Viewplane.
ExxtslT F -HPC Minutes dated March 8, 2006; June 14, 2006; and July 12, 2006.
Page-6-of6
may/ ` J
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS TWO GROWTH MANAGEMENT
REVIEWS AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH
CONDITIONS SUBDIVISION FOR 308 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M AND N,
BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY,
PARCEL
RESOLUTION NO. S$RIES OF 2007
WHEREAS, the Community Development~epartment received an application from J.
W. Venture, LLC represented by Vann Associates, LLC, requesting approval of two (2)
Growth Management Reviews and Subdivision Review to construct amixed-use building
consisting of 2,745 square feet of commercial space, 2free-market residential units and 3
affordable housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Commercial Design Review Approval from
the Historic Preservation Commission on July 12, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Viewplane Review Approval fora 3 foot 3
inch intrusion into the Hotel Jerome Viewplane from the Historic Preservation
Commission on July 12, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 17, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No._, Series of 2007, by a _ to _ ~-~
vote, approving two Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed-use
building that includes commercial space, free market and affordable housing,
recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision to
construct a mixed-use building consisting of two (2) free-market residential unit and
2,745 square feet of commercial space located on the property at 308 E. Hopkins Ave,
Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the
approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions a
Growth Management Review for the development of a mixed-use building; a Growth
Management Review for the development offree-market housing; a Growth Management
Review for the development of affordable housing for the property located at Lots M and
N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The use mix and dimensional
requirements shall comply with the CC zone district, as included in the chart below.
Specific square footage requirements may be amended, pursuant to compliance with the
CC zone district.
1~~-~it~ottal , ~troves# „~ - .ef
Unde r erctal.(~~"~ope
Re~>Qirement
Req~ ~ x~ ~ . ~- _,
y
4
rg~ ~~ T ~~emeuta- "~
aS:`f {
~3
~k" 5 A"L'E
-:
Minimum Lot 6,032 sq. fr. No requirement
Size
Minimum Lot 60 Feet No requirement
Width
Minimum Lot N/A
Area/Dwellin No requirement
Minimum 0 Feet
Front Yard No requirement
Setback
Minimum Side 0 Feet
Yard Setback No requirement
Minimum Rear 0 Feet
Yard Setback No requirement except trash/utility service area
shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to
Section 26.575.060
Maximum Building: 35 Feet along Hopkins 42 feet for all areas of the property.
Height Ave, measured to the top of the
third floor 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from
lot lines ad'oinin a Street ri ht-of--way.
Minimum N/A No requirement
Distance
between
Buildings on
Lot
Pedestrian Providing 8% onsite and cash-in- Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Amenity S ace lieu fee for 17% _ $51,272 Ameni
Section 2: Plat and Agreement
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City
Council grant subdivision approval and that, should City Council grant subdivision
approval, the Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of such
approval. If Subdivision approval is granted by City Council, the final Condominium Plat
may be approved and signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial
completion of construction.
Sectiou 3: Building Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly
the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit
submittal.
e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and
drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements.
The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The
construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will
be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging azeas will be
identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during
construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm
run off must be addressed.
f A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
permit submittal plan.
g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted Building Code
requirements.
h. An approved Landscape Plan.
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The building as presented in the plans contained within the application complies with the
dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Compliance with
these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of
building permit submittal.
Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness
regulations pertaining to size and security.
Sectiou 6: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter
The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA
requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans
that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a
Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development.
~'
Section 7: Affordable Housing
The affordable housing units shall be deed restricted as Category 4 rentals with the
capability of converting into ownership units if the owners would request this change or
APCHA deems the units out of compliance for a period of more than one year. If the
units become "for sale" due to the aforementioned conditions, they will be listed with the
Housing Office at Category 4 maximum sales prices.
Sectiou 8: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements
a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the
District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear
water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing
establishment; Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building
permit; even though the commercial space will be tenant-finished, interceptors will be
required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project.
d. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shaft
drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors.
e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require
installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared
service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a
single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or
right of ways.
£ Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping
may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
h. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge
of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol
storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
i. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines.
j. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow
calculations.
Section 10: Exterior Lighting
-~
~~
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 11: Landscaping
a. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of
the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in
this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility
connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not
encroach into the tree protection zones.
b. Prior to any the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be
approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through
cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees.
c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the
building permit set.
d. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under
the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service
company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees
located on adjacent properties.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a park
development impact fee and a TDM/Air Quality impact fee prior to building permit
issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code
Section 26.610.090, Fee Schedule.
Section 13: Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity, the Applicant shall
pay acash-in-lieu fee for pedestrian amenity in the amount equal to seventeen (17%)
percent of the lot area, as the applicant is providing eight percent (8%) on site, prior to
building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation:
Lot area = 6,032 square feet
17% of Lot Area = 1,025.44 square feet
Payment = $50 x 1025.44 square feet
Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu = $51,272,
Section 14: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall
pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the
calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit
submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site
improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site.
Section 15: Reconstruction Credits Deadline Extension
The one (1) year deadline for the reconstruction of existing commercial net leasable
credits, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070.A, is hereby extended to two (2)
years to accommodate the projects' additional approval requirements.
~^*~ ,~,
•...~ ~.r
Section 16•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 17:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 18:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 17~'
day of April, 2007.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
Ruth Kruger, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
..
Exhibit A
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN A MIXED-USE
PROJECT
Section 26.470.040 C.6., of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Growth Management approval must comply with the following standards and requirements.
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion,
pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments.
StaffFindinQ
As noted previously, adequate development allotments area available for this proposal. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding
The project contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the
managing growth section of the AACP. Additionally, this development does not require growth
Management Allotments, complying with the 2% desired annual growth in the managing growth
section of the AACP.
The project promotes the AACP's goals with regards to transportation by developing a building
that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes -transit, walking, and bicycling -and
that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level
and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities.
The redevelopment exceeds the required amount of on-site affordable housing.
The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include
improvements along sidewalks on East Hopkins Avenue and will pay a Park Development
Impact Fee. Cash in lieu payment for 17% of the Pedestrian Amenity Space will be used for
important pedestrian improvement downtown. HPC did not support more than the proposed
open space on the site in an effort to remain consistent with downtown character.
The development also meets the AACP with regazd to design quality as the architectural design
enhances the existing chazacter of the area through its consistency with the Commercial Design
Standards reviewed by the HPC.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c) Affordable housing net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above
Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to
thirty (30) percent of the additional free-market residential net livable space, for which the
finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Additional
net livable affordable housing space beyond this requirement may be developed below Natural
or Finished Grade but shall not count towards this criterion. Affordable housing shall be
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 1 of 7
.-.
..r ...
approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to
Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category
designation.
Staff Finding
The existing building is entirely commercial, and does not contain any residential units. The
commercial net livable space is being replaced with the redevelopment- no additional
commercial space is being generated in this application. The proposed redevelopment includes
two new free-market units in a total of 5,994 square feet. The mitigation requirement is 1,798
square feet (the equivalent of 4.5 employees); the applicant proposes to exceed this requirement
by providing 2,112 square feet of net livable space (the equivalent of 4.75 employees).
As noted below in the review criteria for affordable housing, the affordable housing units meet
the criteria of 26.470.040. C.7, Affordable Housing.
Staff finds this criterion met.
d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public
infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and
communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal,
parking, and road and transit services.
Staff Finding
The project represents minimal additional demand on the public infrastructure, as the site is
currently developed and served with utilities. Through the design of the project, drainage,
utilities and public infrastructure will be properly improved or installed. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Section 26.470.040 C.6., of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Growth Management approval must comply with the following standards and requirements.
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units,
pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0, Development Ceiling Levels.
Staff Finding
As noted previously, adequate development allotments are available for this proposal. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding
The project contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the
managing growth section of the AACP. Additionally, this development does not require growth
Management Allotments, complying with the 2% desired annual growth in the managing growth
section of the AACP.
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 2 of 7
~~ ~
The project promotes the AACP's goals with regards to transportation by developing a building
that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes -transit, walking, and bicycling -and
that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level
and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities.
The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include
improvements along sidewalks on East Cooper and will pay a Park Development Impact Fee.
The development also meets the AACP with regard to design quality as the architectural deign
enhances the existing character of the area through its consistency with the Commercial Design
Review standards s reviewed by the HPC.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the AspenlPitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a
public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Finding
The Housing Board reviewed the approval at their Regular Meeting held March 7, 2007 and
recommended approval with conditions. The Board prefers the units are "for sale" units sold
through the lottery system. However since the applicant proposes Category 4 rental units, the
Board proposes that the units be deed restricted as Category 4 rental with the capability of
converting into ownership units if the owners would request this change or APCHA deems the
units out of compliance for a period of more than one year. If the units become "for sale" due to
the aforementioned conditions, they will be listed with the Housing Office at Category 4
maximum sales prices.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly
built units or buy-down units. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished
floor level of fifty (50) percent or more of the unit's net livable square footage is at or above
Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Off-site units shall be provided within the
City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City
Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through acash-in-lieu
payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable
housing may be provided through a mix of these methods.
Staff'FindinQ
As stated in response to criterion c, the required Affordable Housing is in the form of actual
newly built units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 3 of 7
~ .~,
.... ~.
e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as `for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner
may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with
approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall
authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and
rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, or its Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing
units owned and associated with a lodging or commercial operations to be rental units if a
legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of
the units. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen,
Pitkin County, or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject
to this mandatory `for-sale"provision.
Staff Finding
The applicant requests that the three affordable housing units are Category 4 rental units. The
Housing Authority, as mentioned in criterion c above, proposes that the units be deed restricted
as Category 4 rental with the capability of converting into ownership units if the owners would
request this change or APCHA deems the units out of compliance for a period of more than one
year. If the units become "for sale" due to the aforementioned conditions, they will be listed
with the Housing Office at Category 4 maximum sales prices.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
The project contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the
managing growth section of the AACP. Additionally, this development does not require growth
Management Allotments, complying with the 2% desired annual growth in the managing growth
section of the AACP.
The project promotes the AACP's goals with regards to transportation by developing a building
that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes -transit, walking, and bicycling -and
that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level
and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities.
The redevelopment proposes to exceed affordable housing requirements on the site, fulfilling the
goals of the AACP.
The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include
improvements along sidewalks on East Hopkins Avenue and will pay a Park Development
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 4 of 7
~..,~
Impact Fee. Cash in lieu payment for 17% of the Pedestrian Amenity Space will be used for
important pedestrian improvement downtown. HPC did not support more than the proposed
open space on the site in an effort to remain consistent with downtown character.
The development also meets the AACP with regard to design quality as the architectural design
enhances the existing character of the area through its consistency with the Commercial Design
Standards reviewed by the HPC.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing [and uses in
the area.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed mixed-use building is consistent with the land uses in the
immediate vicinity. Further, the HPC has reviewed the Application for consistency with the
neighborhood characteristics in the Commercial Core. The design has received conceptual
approval from the HPC, and will go to HPC to receive final approval of the design. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Finding
The surrounding properties are close to fully developed. Additionally, the development meets all
the requirements of the CC zone district, and park development, school land, and other impact
fees will be paid to mitigate for any other impacts from the development. Therefore, Staff does
not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding
properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
StaffFinding
The proposed development is in compliance with the CC zone district requirements and meets all
other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivisiou.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition
that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed
subdivision.
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 5 of 7
4,/
w. .
Staff Finding
Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site is already developed and is
within the designated Aspen Infill Area. The site contains no overly steep topography and no
known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed
development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension ofpublic
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. Staff finds that there will be no
duplication of public facilities as the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate
public facilities. The Applicant has stated the cost of any necessary utility extensions or
upgrades will be borne by the Applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430)
if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision
design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional
engineers as necessary.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to
Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall
be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter
26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.470, Crowth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is providing more than the required affordable housing on site. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth
at Chapter 26.630.
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 6 of 7
C
Staff Finding
The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing
land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications
for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth
management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision
approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit
Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly
created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to
development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City At[orney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, §
2)
Staff Finding
The development requires Growth Management Allotments for the free-market units and
affordable housing mitigation, which are available to this project. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 7 of 7
,.. ~.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),
VIEWPLANE REVIEW, PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE, DEMOLITION AND
COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 308 EAST
HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M, AND N, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
RESOLUTION NO. 18, SERIES OF 2006
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-29-007.
WHEREAS, the applicant, JW Venture LLC, represented by Sunny Vann and Charles Cunniffe
Architects has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Commercial Design
Review for the property located at 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for View Plane Exemption the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with
Municipal Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, in order to authorize a demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of
designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the
following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
.,~
tee.
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the followine criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship
to adjacent designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to detennine, per Section 26.412 of
the Municipal Code, that the project conforms with the following criteria:
1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not
required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the facade of the
building may be required to comply with this section.
3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a
Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan
approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This
criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the
Historic Preservation Commission; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated July 12, 2006, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 12, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote
of 4 to 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), View Plane
Review, Pedestrian Amenity Space, Demolition, and Commercial Design Review for the
.1
property located at 308 East Hopkins Avenue, Lot M & N, Block 80, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions;
A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of July 2006.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
_~ _.....
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 8. 2006
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Alison Agley and Derek
Skalko. Jason Lasser was seated at 5:12 p.m. Michael Hoffman was
excused.
Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner
Jackie Lothian, Deputy Clerk
MOTION.• Derek moved to approve the minutes of Feb. 8"' as amended and
Feb. 2Z"d; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried.
308 E. HOPHINS AVE. - CONCEPUTAL, COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW, DEMOLITION, PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE AND
VIEW PLAN REVIEW
Affidavit of postir-g -Exhibit I
Charles Cunniffe, architect
Amy said there is a structure on the site and the proposal is to demolish and
replace it. The building used to be on the historic inventory and two years
ago it was de-listed. HPC needs to verify that the demolition standazds have
been met. In terms of conceptual review staff feels there is a conflict with
the guidelines in terms of the placement of the entry. There are three entry
points on the ground level, two go to residential units and one into the
ground level restaurant. They are all setback from the street. Guidelines
13.3, and 13.19 suggest that the entry should be right at the sidewalk or
slightly recessed no more than 4 feet which is what you have when you have
a typical Victorian store front. The open balconies that face the street still
are in conflict with guideline 13.12 which requires flat facades. The
proposal is not consistent with downtown. Three-story buildings per
guideline 13.10 are to be considered on a case by case basis. Regarding the
commercial design review guidelines, staff finds that two guidelines A3 and
C3 are not in compliance. A3 requires a flat fagade on the first and second
levels. C3 requires entries to be well defined and appazent. The applicant is
requesting that the cash in lieu be waived for the open space (Pedestrian
Amenity Space). At this time Staff is not recommending in favor of the cash
in lieu waiver because the community needs it for other improvements in the
downtown. The last matter to deal with is the view plane. There is a view
plane that originates from the Hotel Jerome toward Aspen Mountain and as
.,:~
.'~-.
-s
w
<~
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH $. 2006
it crosses this property it hits at the second floor level. It allows for atwo-
storybuilding but does not allow for a third floor. There are two ways to
deal with that; either HPC grants an exemption finding that there is
negligible impact to the view plane or it can through a PUD process. Staff
recommends continuance because there aze HPC design view issues and
view plane issues.
Chazles said there are three entry points. The entry to the units upstairs is
through the courtyard rather than on the street. We would like the condition
waived that the two entrances have to be at sidewalk level. One of the
driving forces in the proposal is the outdoor dining courtyard. The door
furthest to the west can be pulled forward to comply with the guideline. We
want to work with what is happening on that street, the vitality and have the
restaurant continue that vitality. .
Regarding the balconies, we can further reduce their size and have them a
protective balcony rather than a linear balcony across the front.
Jeffrey inquired about the view plan study. Charles said they do intercept
the view plane. In favor of what we are trying to do, if you look at the
buildings on either side there is some significant construction on either side.
The white Victorian at some point will have a two or three story addition. It
would effectively take out our view plane issue because it is forward of us.
Derek inquired if studies were done to take down the height. Charles said
they could take off 2 or three feet. They were trying to create a nice height
above the kitchen, the parking and the employee housing which is above the
second floor.
Amy said for clarification there is a guideline that encourages first floors to
have gracious height. Chazles said they could have the first floor high and
then step the building over the parking in the back to reduce the height.
Alison asked Charles to address the entrance to the restaurant on the street
facade. Charles said in the summer people will sit in the patio then sit at the
windows. We can pull the western doorway forward to have a more historic
context. We wanted it stepped back because the Victorian next door, the
Genra Bistro building steps back.
Chariperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 8. 2006
Rob Ittner, owner of Range restaurant. Rob said we welcome another
vibrant restaurant on the street. Rob said he hopes the architect is conscious
of the views in designing their wall on the west because their restaurant on
the second floor is set back.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing portion of the
meeting.
Board comments.
Derek said his concern is the overall massing and his concern is the 3rd story.
We need to come to a balance. The current height is 42 feet. The patio will
add vibrancy to the street. Derek recommended a restudy of the massing
context.
Jason said the western fapade needs to be restudied to add sensitivity to the
block. The design would be better if it was a two story building with a third
story loft. The south facade also needs restudied to comply with guideline
13.12. It should be broken down to have more of a horizontal effect. The
guidelines state that the entry should be on the street facade and that should
be accommodated. There probably won't be dining in the winter.
Regarding the dining space, at the last meeting the deck above didn't have a
cover over it. We are trying to reduce the amount of balconies.
Alison also said she feels the entry should be looked at on the street fapade
and how that would work. The main entrance should be within four feet of
the street. She said Jason had a good point about walking through the patio
in the summer and during winter it isn't used. On the western fagade the
balcony not being glass and being brick would be better. The eastern
balcony needs restudied. Maybe it isn't necessary. Regarding the view
plane, this is difficult because it is the first building on the block. Story
poles would help. Alison is also in favor of continuance to look at the story
poles and restudy the balconies.
Sarah also concurred with the story poles. The view plane is a tough thing
for us to be judging projects by, but it is what we have and we need to
respect that. Maybe some articulations would lessen the blow of the view
plane. This is the first box going up but we need to judge it for today and
not tomorrow. If you can bring all the issues into play that were discussed, it
will serve this building well.
..
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 8. 2006
Jeffrey concurred with the board. The small scale intimacy of this restaurant
row has nicely been maintained. It is difficult to come in with a large design
that is allowable by scale. The architecture should compliment at least on
the front the Victorian scale. It is a difficult design challenge. On the entry
it should be as close to present to the street as possible. The overall mass
and scale is much too grand. Lowering the top floor by three feet isn't going
to help it. We have historic view planes for a reason and they are site
specific. Some undulation could compliment the view plan predicament and
would help the mass and scale. Jeffrey said he supports the commercial use
and the story poles. The balconies are very aggressive. Jeffrey pointed out
that he understands that the scale of the town is continually changing but our
purview at the same time is to maintain the intimacy. This is a difficult
transition. The board feels there will be a favorable outlook.
Derek said the view plane is important but he could be favorable with some
designs that infringe on the view plane if they are respectful to what is going
on around it.
Sarah said she cannot support waiving the cash in lieu.
Charles said they will reduce the horizontal line of the balconies to more of a
projected balcony and try to break down the massing that way.
MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual
development of 308 E. Hopkins until April 19`x; second by Derek. All in
favor, motion carried S-0. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Alison, yes; Derek,
yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes.
332 W. MAIN -CONCEPTUAL -DEMOLITION -VARIANCES
Sarah recused herself.
Motion: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual
development for 332 W. Main until May 10`''; second by Alison, All in favor,
motion carried 4-0.
330 E. MAIN -MAJOR DEVELOPMENT -CONCEPTUAL -Public
Hearing continued from Feb. 22°d
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2006
~,... Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Alison Agley, Derek
Skalko. Jason Lasser was seated at 5:12 p.m. Michael Hoffrnan was
excused.
Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner
Sarah Adams, Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of May 10, 2006; second by
Alison. All in favor, motion carried.
701 W. MAIN -Monitoring -'The historic bldg. has been picked up and
put it on its new foundation and they are getting ready to start the rehab
work. The question is about the door. There is an original door opening on
the east side of the shed It will be the entry to the living unit in the
basement. The applicant has asked if they can shift it northward in order to
make it more of a standard 6.8 door. This is required by code but historic
buildings have some flexibility. The building official indicated that the door
could remain in place as a 6.3 door.
Patrick Hunter, contractor said he was asked to put in the new door per code.
We will do whatever everyone agrees upon.
Jeffrey pointed out that they are trying to get the head room clearance.
Patrick said he just needs some kind of agreement.
MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve 701 E. Main to keep the historic door
opening and work with the City on allowing non-code requirements in
height. Motion second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes;
Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried S-0.
308 E. HOPHINS AVE. -CONCEPTUAL -DEMOLITION -
PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE, AND VIEW PLAN REVIEW
Charles Cunniffe, architect
Amy said in general the project has made a lot of progress from what was
.... initially proposed which was athree-story building with decks on the front.
~._ The latest is atwo-story that fits in with the scale of the neighborhood better.
__~ _ _ ___
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
There is a one-story outdoor seating azea in the front which does have a
relationship to the smaller structures on the street. A few things need
focused on, one of which is the one-story element then the two-story that is
set back and actually conflicts with some of the guidelines. You need to
make the rationale why you would make an exception, which might be that
the context of this street is so different rather than other streets that have
buildings right up to the street. It also conflicts with some of the commercial
design standards which talk about flat fagade buildings. This property is two
lots wide and a lot of the buildings on this block are only one lot wide and is
there something more that can be done other than the way they staggered the
building. Staff supports demolition of the existing building. The remaining
discussion is really about the view plane. The applicant has made a response
by trying to make aone-story element in the front and as a result things get
pushed back into the view plane. Is it the right solution to pull the building
forward and get them out of the view plane or is the context of the street
more appropriate. If the building is pulled forward it would comply with our
guidelines. The view plane is not something this board has reviewed in the
past. We have asked the HPC to review it because we are consolidating the
application.
Charles Cunniffe, azchitect. We are trying to find some ways to balance
conflicting forces. We have been trying to relate to the Genre building,
Seguin building and the building on the corner by having aone-story
element at the street with a receded area for the courtyard for a restaurant.
Part of the commercial guidelines is to liven the street area. At the same
time we are tying to deal with the view plane from the back which is a
sliding view plane. At some point in time the two buildings on either side
will be added onto. The two Victorians on Main Street in all probability will
have atwo-story addition which would put more mass between us and the
view plane.
Charles pointed out that there are buildings on this block that are larger than
this building. The part that we are intruding into the view plane is 4.3 feet.
We aze asking for an exception from the view plane.
Alison pointed out that there are a few buildings that received view plane
relief in that same azea, the Matshisa building being one. The Conner Cabin
project also got relief.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
~... public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commissioner comments:
Derek pointed out that the height of this building has radically come down
since we first saw the project. He understands the unique architectures
adjacent to the building that they have to work with including the view
plane. Pushing the building back is more consistent with what is existing in
that area. From a view plane standpoint the height is negligible and as mare
and more development occurs in the core we are inevitably going to find that
this issue will continue to come up. The height is 36 feet and it was reduced
from 42 feet. Derek is very supportive of the massing and scale but would
like more information regarding the first floor fenestration.
Jason said the street level stepping back is very successful and is sensitive to
the Range building and Genre building. The hard part is that our guidelines
aze conflicting and a lot of effort has been made to accommodate them.
Jason's issue is the flat fapade in the back and the width of the upper loft.
Possibly it can come in two feet on either side. As far as the view plane is
concerned the ceiling height is 10 feet and maybe it can come down to 9 feet
to reduce the height into the view plane. Possibly a material change could
divide the first and second levels.
Alison said the width of the fagade of the second level doesn't read that wide
to her. Alison commended the architect for listening to the Boards
comments and make revisions to the plans. The proposed building fits into
the street a lot better after the revisions. She would prefer that the facade not
be broken up.
Massing -The second-story being pushed back works because we know that
the Genre and building on the comer will stay at those levels.
View plane -The height is below the allowable but also in the view plane.
P&Z gave view plane relief to the piece behind the Matshisa building and
that needs to be considered in setting precedents. With some of the other
Victorian's in the alley we are going to have these tall additions. Alison said
with dropping the building a foot it would not be a significant impact on the
view plane.
Sarah said this building has come very far. Her issue is guideline 13.11
.~. (dividing the building into modules) maybe there is a subtle way to do that.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NIINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
.~ In terms of view plan Jason had good suggestions in terms of plate height
~...- reduction etc. Breaking the building into modules like Conner Cabins might
work. The thought would be to minimize the long fagade.
Charles said the idea is to have an open air cafe and they intend to construct
a landscape fence and that fence would become the edge.
Amy said there are two issues we need to be comfortable with: This
building is very close to the Genre bldg. and we need to know what kind of
separation is there. Jeffrey said the building department has rules and
regulations on property line protection. Amy said it was her understanding
that the awning would be retractable.
Derek interjected that he could approve the project as is.
Charles said one of our goals is to make the fagade as transparent as possible
so it looks like it is engaging the sidewalk. The open air patio would have
dining tables with a retractable awning and engage with the street.
Alison asked what the distance was between the Genre building. Charles
said probably a couple feet. Alison said the eave would probably touch the
Genre building. Charles said he will work with Jce Krabacher, one of the
owners of the Genre building to make sure they have a fire proof protection.
Charles said they could pull the upper floor back a little more to provide a
shadow line and break the fagade up a little.
Jeffrey said he is in agreement that the proposal has come a long way. The
two conflicting guidelines are the view plane and our commercial core
guidelines. It is an anomaly to have two historic resources in this proximity.
He is in favor with reducing the plate heights and the possible differentiation
of the planes and how this building affects the Genre building. With further
massaging we can get a consensus across the board for approval.
Jeffrey pointed out that we do not want to approve a building then all of a
sudden have to fire proof the historic resource next door due to its proximity.
Placing the door to the street facing element works well. The
differentiations ofthe facades help moderate mass and scale. Jeffrey said he
is in total agreement with reducing the plate heights.
.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2006
Jeffrey stated that in the future he would prefer that the HPC & P&Z have a
joint meeting or work session.
Charles said he has heard tonight that half the board feels the facade should
go straight across and others feel it should be stepped back. He asked the
board for clarification.
Alison said she is fine with the shadow line.
Chazles said he can drop the plate height and incorporate the shadow line.
Sarah stated that she would prefer to see the drawings again because we aze
working with mass and scale.
MOTION.• Derek moved to approve Resolution #1 S for 308 E. Hopkins Ave.
for conceptual development as proposed. Motion dies for lack of a second.
MOTION.• Jason moved to approve Resolution #1 S for 308 E. Hopkins with
the following conditions:
1. Reduction of the roof plate heights upper loft to nine feet ceiling
height inside.
2. A step in the facade of the upper and second story brick facade from
the lower level at both points to two feet each side.
3. Reduction in the width of the upper loft.
Motion second by Alison.
Sarah said she has difficulties putting design constraints on a project that
need restudied.
Jeffrey said the board in general is in favor of an exemption of the view
plan.
Amended motion:
4. Keep separation as close to the building but not replace Genre's
siding. Provide functionality for access to Genre.
Roll call vote.• Jason, no. Derek, no. Alison, no; Jeffrey, no. Sarah, no.
Motion dies 4-0.
MOTION.• Derek moved to continue Conceptual development and the public
hearing for 308 E. Hopkins until July 12, 2006; second by Sarah. All in
favor, motion carried 4-0.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2006
Jeffrey relayed that Chapter 13 and 14 have been adhered to. The
modifications have helped its mass and scale.
MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve Resolution #17 for 508 E. Cooper Ave.
as presented tonight, second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek,
yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried S-0.
308 E. HOPHINS -CONCEPTUAL -DEMOLITION -PEDESTRIAN
AMENTY SPACE AND VIEW PLANE REVIEW -PUBLIC
HEARING
Exhibit I -Genre building -fire wall.
Amy explained that staff feels there has been a lot of progress on the project.
At the last hearing there were a few things asked to be restudied: Reduce
plate heights and pulling in the width of the upper floor to minimize the
intrusion of the Hotel Jerome view plane. Restudy breaking the building
into two 30 foot modules. Allow enough space between the new
construction and the Genre building for maintenance and to ensure that the
historic siding would not have to be removed. The applicant has clearly
done a few of these things, reduced the plate heights and they have also
created the shadow line that was requested. Staff is still concerned that a
couple things are not resolved. No additional breathing room has been given
to the Genre building and architecturally it is not appropriate to butt up
against that building. Genre is an historic landmark and this building is not.
Staff also feels that the side walls have not been resolved. They have been
pulled in on the lower but not the full depth of the building. The Planning
Office feels strongly that the view plane is important and HPC should take
that concept of negligible impact very seriously.
Charles Cunniffe, architect stated that HPC verbalized that if we reduce the
plate height by a foot then the view plane would be anon-issue at the last
meeting. We have cut off some square feet and cut down the plate heights to
accomplish that. We are now down to a 3.3 in the view plane. The view
plane is a sliding view plane. Charles pointed out that when the cottages on
Main Street come before HPC they will want to add two stories.
The second issue is the breaking up the front fagade and we have
accomplished that.
11
r
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2006
Charles said they met with the owners of the Genre building and they do not
want us to step our building back and would prefer that it be adjacent to
them and have it be a party wall that will help both buildings. We can't
afford to pull the building back because it would affect the upper floor. The
current court yard restaurant covered patio goes back 18 feet and the
entrance into the free market part of the building as well as into the
affordable part of the building is on the right side of the patio. We are
suggesting eliminating that wall then the whole side of the Genre building
will be visible. As you walk along the street you will be able to see the
Genre building. The roof would be flashed which is recommended by the
Building Dept. We would work in conjunction with the owners of the
building to retain a party wall/fire wall. We propose to take the asbestos
siding off and put in some fire proofing and then put some other material on
the side. We don't want to create more problem areas throughout town than
we have. We are offering a solution where we keep the Genre building
exposed but allow us to build to our property line.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing.
Rob Ittner, owner of Range said the proposal is good for the street and he
really likes the design. The street is very unique. His building was built in a
time and under different code and on a street that is very specific to Aspen.
There is no other street in the core that has the presence that this street has.
His building is set back 20 feet from the street and there is a patio in front of
it. The synergy is more toward the Genre building and ignoring the Range
bldg. In terms of the view plane variance it is minimal. One comment
because I have a patio on the second floor whose view will greatly be
diminished. The utilities will have to be on top of this building give the fact
that it is a restaurant and he is not sure if the system will be in the view
plane. Rob said he welcomes a vibrant restaurant next door.
The chair closed the public hearing.
Comments:
Alison said reducing the plate heights and taking one foot off the building is
appreciated. The applicant isn't going any higher than the Miner's building
so I have no problem with the view plane variance. She appreciates the new
way of looking at the Genre wall and it is successful and the best solution.
The way the wall will be restored will make the Genre wall look even better.
The step in the front fagade is fine and the entire building has improved.
12
_~ ~
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2006
Derek expressed his appreciation to the applicant for all the work and time
that has gone into this project. When the view plane was set the ordinances
and codes of the city as far as massing and height restrictions have
drastically changed. The view plane and codes do not correspond together.
The view plane has outdated itself This building is sympathetic to the view
plane and the massing and scale are appropriate and comply with our
guidelines. Regarding the relationship of Genre and the rest of the street's
energies, obviously the building relates more to the Genre bldg. because that
is the historical building that will not be going anywhere. Derek said he is
onboard for conceptual approval.
Jason said the changes have improved the project. Unfortunately we are in
conflict with our guidelines regarding buildings being on the street front.
The only concern is the upper story and possibly it could be broken up a
little and pulled in more.
Sarah said the changes are moving in the right direction. Regarding the
glass block there are better ways to address that opening that is so prevalent
on the street. Regarding the view plane she agrees that it is a sympathetic
proposal. We as a conunission should not be putting dimensional
requirements on applicants. Pushing back the door along the Genre side is
very successful. Hopefully the awning isn't out all the time so that the
comer is more apparent on the street.
Jeffrey said the suggestion of pulling away the wall to express the Genre
historic wall is a noble effort and he encourages the same for the western
side. The view plane conceptually works. He also agreed that a jog or notch
would help the rear facade as far as the view plane. The improvements to
the front facade are sympathetic to our guidelines. Our commission strives
to create a greater separation but in fact it pushes the building further into
the view plane. The lightness and thinness of the penthouse is
commendable.
Charles said we might be able to put actual windows on the west side of the
building with the idea that if the Range building gets rebuilt we would have
to put a wall in.
MOTIDN.• Sarah moved to approve Resolution #18,1006 for 308 E.
Hopkins Ave. as proposed tonight with the condition that they have to come
back for final in a year or ask for an extension in the required time frame;
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2006
second by Derek. Roll call vote.• Jason, no; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah,
yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 4-I
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Derek. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting/ aOdjourned~at 8:`00 p.m.
GvZ~I~LG~...~1 ~~-•-til
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
t4
,~ -~
+~ ti
PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOTES:
Page 1 of 1
...,
w
Jessica Garrow
From: Ed Van Walraven
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:07 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: La Cocina
- i~l'i Sl! -'/t~i4'.'y..
Jessica,
My comments for the DRC of the La Cocina are as follows:
Installation of a fire sprinkler system in accordance to NFPA 13
Installation of a fire alarm system in accordance to NFPA 72
I also have a question regarding the dumpster site. I will call the applicant directly to get a clarification.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any comments or concerns.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Van Walraven
Fire Marshal
Aspen Fire Protection District
420 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-2690 Office
970-920-4451 Fax
2/14/2007
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 200
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
Co/unTy~of Pitkiu r ) .. /~ ~
I' ~' "`~~ I ~~ l ~~~~ t ~ ~ `~ (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) oof the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner.,
V~ Publication ofnotice: By fne publicaton in the iegai notice section of an official
' paper or a paper of general circulation iu the City cf Aspen at least fifteen (l5)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
h
Postin o noricet B
g f y posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Deparhnent, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visrble from the _ day of
200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. Aphotograph oftheposted nonce (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notce. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Departrnent, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prig tr o
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property. subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitltin County as they
appeazed no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Tifle is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description o~ and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
!~~e'~pTA R.r '
v~~
Room, City Hall, 130 5. Galena SL, Aspa ,
view an apPlicahon for Growm Managemen6 antl -
Subtlivision of 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, rommonly
known as the La Cocina. The sublecf property is
legally tlescdbetl es Lols M, and N, Block 80, of the
City antl TOwnsife of Aspen.
For further information, contact Jessica Garrow a1
fhe Ciry of Aspen Community Development Dept,
130 S. Galena SL, Aspen, CO (9]0) 429-2]80, (or
jessicag®cLaspen co.us). ATTACHMENTS:
elRUfh Kruger, Chair
Aspen Planning antl Zoning Commission
Publishetl in the Aspen Times Weekly on March 4, COPPOP 1~EPU]jLI(~f TION '
200]. (194183) - ~,
The fore oing "Affi avit of Notice" was aclmowle ged before me thi, da ~'i~ O C1o~Of,,P~
of---~~ 200? by
My Cammsaien Expires 09/25/2009
wii BSS ~y iiAi~i AND vFFiCIAL SEAL
Pueuc No IcE My co3nmission expires: ~ 7/~ (l~
RE: 308 EAST HOPKINSgAVE (LA COCINA).
GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVIEW, AND SUB- ~q/ ^,~A ~ ~ /I
DIVISION REVIEW -- PUBLI HEAPING ~ ° ' V l Cp//r4/~-~
NOTICE IS HEREBV GIVE fM1af a public hearing ~
will be held on Tueedey, arch 20, 200], ate Notary Public -
meeting to begin et 6:30 D.m. before me Aspen
Plannin and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities ~ -
n to re-
- PHOTOG&APH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
^,
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 308 EAST HOPHINS AVE (LA COCINA), GROWTH MANAGEMENT
REVIEW, AND SUBDIVISION REVIEW -- PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, Mazch 20,
2007, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to review an
application for Growth Management, and Subdivision at 308 E. Hopkins Avenue,
commonly known as the La Cocina. The subject property is legally described as Lots M,
and N, Block 80, of the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact
Jessica Gazrow at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO (970) 429-2780, (or iessicaenci.asuen.co.us).
s/Ruth Krueer, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on Mazch 4, 2007
City of Aspen Account
~ ~
Radio Shack -True Value Hardware - Auto Parts
Kitchen Loft -Sporting Goods
MINERS' BUILDING SUPPLY
319 E. Main Street P. O. Box X Aspen, CO 81612
Phone (970) 925-5550
March 17, 2007
Ruth Kruger, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: 308 East Hopkins Ave (LaCocina), Growth Management Review and Subdivision
review -Public Hearing
We would like to go on record opposing any variance in height for this building. You
may recall in the building of the Miners' Building, we had already submitted plans when
the City of Aspen passed the "View Plane" ordinance, causing us to have our plans
redrawn and removing considerable squaze footage from our building. We accepted this
decision and made the changes and now totally oppose the infill ideas.
Please make this information available to all members of the Commission. We
appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Cazl R. Bergman, Owner
~/ .~.
.r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: 308 E. Hopkins Avenue- Major Development Review (Conceptual), Commercial
Design Review, Demolition, Pedestrian Amenity Space, and View Plane Review-
Public Hearing
DATE: July 12, 2006 (Continued Public Hearing)
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to demolish and replace a structure which was once listed,
but has since been removed, from the historic inventory. The property is located within the
Commercial Core Historic District. Conceptual approval is requested, along with review under
the recently adopted "Commercial Design Review" standards, which apply to all commercial,
lodge, and mixed use development in town. HPC must also make a determination on the
project's "Pedestrian Amenity Space," formerly known as "Open Space" and the building's
effect on the Hotel Jerome View Plane.
The applicant has restudied the building in response to previous comments from HPC and
staff. In terms of compliance with HPC guidelines, staff finds that the project has improved
considerably. However, a few unresolved issues remain that greatly influence the mass of
the project: the intrusion into the viewplane and proximity to the Genre building. Staff
recommends continuation for further restudy.
APPLICANT: JW Venture LLC, represented by Sunny Vann and Charles Cunniffe Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-29-007.
ADDRESS: 308 E. Hopkins, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant
Staff Response: Conceptual review for this project focuses on the height, scale, massing and
proportions of the proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is
attached as "Exhibit A."
This project is one of the first proposed new buildings in the downtown since FAR was increased
in the zone district and a number of other regulations, such as "open space" were relaxed. It is
important to give cazeful consideration to the kind of substantial new commercial structures that
should continue to define downtown Aspen in the future.
HPC has held a worksession and two Conceptual review hearings on this project (minutes
attached). Discussion centered on the relationship to the one story homes on the block and the
desire to respond effectively to the character of the historic district and good urban design
practices. The board has been in favor of the front courtyazd as a lively space for the proposed
restaurant use. Four main points were recommended for restudy at the last review hearing:
reducing the plate heights and pulling in the width of the upper floors to minimize intrusion into
the Hotel Jerome viewplane and to define this as a two story building; restudy breaking the
building width into two 30 foot modules; and allowing enough space between the new
construction and the historic Genre building for maintenance and to ensure that the historic
siding will not have to be removed.
The design is greatly improved in staffs opinion through the stronger emphasis on a two story
building height and the use of a shadow line to vertically break up the building into two modules.
Staff finds the vertical element to successfully correspond with guideline 13.11.
13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to
buildings seen historically.
^ Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to
suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design,
facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered.
These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the
composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings.These vaziations should be
expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the composition appeazs to be
a collection of smaller buildings.
~'
HPC and Staff expressed concern over the proximity between the historic Genre building and the
new construction suggesting that the applicant consider the space needed for maintenance and
fire protection of the abutting historic structure. Staff finds that the new construction must be
sensitive to the historic resource and context, and provide the necessary space to ensure the
integrity of historic material.
Please note that the application does not include a roof plan, which must be provided.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE
An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not
required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the fagade of the
building may be required to comply with this section.
3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a
Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan
approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This
criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Staff Response: The Commercial Design Standards are attached to this memo as "Exhibit B."
They are in many ways similar to HPC's own guidelines. Staff questions the project's
compliance with one standard; A3, which requires a flat fapade on the first and second levels.
Staff finds that moving the bulk toward the rear of the lot intrudes into the viewplane, but creates
a one story element that is sensitive in scale to the historic buildings on the block. The context of
the block demands a compromise between the viewplane and the one story historic resources. At
the June 14th meeting HPC generally agreed that shifting the mass away from the Hopkins
fagade was the appropriate compromise. Staff finds that a deviation from Commercial Design
Standard A3 is appropriate due to the context of the proposed development and its inclusion in
the Commerical Core Historic District as stated in sections 1 and 2 above, and recommends HPC
approval.
Some of the Commercial Design Standards address matters typically handled at HPC Final, so
additional review will likely be needed at that point.
The applicant is required to provide an area equal to 25% of the site as a pedestrian amenity
(formerly open space.) This amenity can be provided on the site, or can be addressed through a
3
comparable improvement made in the downtown area, or a cash in lieu payment. Up to half of
the obligation can be waived by P&Z or HPC as described below. In the past, a property owner
could be exempted from having to provide on-site open space, but would still have to make a
cash-in-lieu payment. Since then, the City has adopted the Commercial Design Review process
that HPC is discussing and has created an opportunity for waiver of the cash-in-lieu payment as
well. The new language is as follows:
Reduction of Requirement. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, may reduce the pedestrian amenity requirement by any amount,
such that no more than half the requirement is waived, as an incentive for well-designed
projects having a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment. The resulting
requirement may not be less than 10%. On-site provision shall not be required for a
reduction in the requirement. A mix of uses within the proposed building that enliven the
surrounding pedestrian environment may be considered.
Staff is not in support of the applicant providing more open space on the site, or waiving the
cash-in-lieu payment that is due to cover the space they are not providing, as requested by the
applicant. The cash payment is used for important pedestrian improvements downtown and
would be a loss to the City. However, HPC may want to consider a reduction as an incentive for
high quality design.
DEMOLITION
Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the
following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
4
Cr
Staff Response: The subject structure includes a Victorian era miner's cottage. The building
was removed from the historic inventory in 2004 based on a finding that enough of it had been
demolished or altered that the building lacked integrity. The staff integrity score from that time
is attached. It was scored significantly below the minimum required for listing. Staff
recommends demolition.
VIEW PLANE
The application requires an exemption from the Main Street View Plane because the parcel is
located within a view plane as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View
Plane Review. The Main Street View Plane originates from a point in front of the Hotel
Jerome.
The Planning and Zoning Commission typically handles View Plane reviews, however the
Community Development Director has the right to consolidate reviews when deemed to be the
most efficient and effective process. HPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
requested view plane exemption request. If HPC does not believe that the proposal satisfies the
criteria for exempting it from the full view plane review, HPC may require the application to
go through the PUD review process as is described in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050(C),
Mountain view plane review standards.
HPC is to apply the following criteria to this issue:
1. No mountain view plane can be infringed upon except as follows:
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable
building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the
provisions of Chapter 26.455 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum
flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and
pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height
requirements, view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated
requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to
require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated.
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front
of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon
the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-
open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the
view plane, and re-development to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall approve the development.
Staff Response: The view plane cuts across this property in a manner so as to limit the
construction of a third floor unless an exemption is granted based on a finding of no significant
visual impact. If that finding cannot be made, the project must be reviewed through a PUD to
/'^`
~.,
look for alternatives, including variances which redirect the development out of the protected
corridor.
Based on comments from the HPC and staff, the applicant has revised the project by reducing the
plate height of the upper level from 11 feet to 10 feet; therefore reducing the overall height of the
building from 36 feet to 35 feet, with 3 feet 3 inches intruding into the viewplane. The applicant
has provided new graphics that illustrate the impact of the height reduction.
In response to HPC and staffs concern regarding the impact of the upper floor width into the
view plane, the applicant reduced the width of a portion of the upper floor by pulling in each side
1 foot and 2 %Z inches reducing the width by 2.5 feet for the Hopkins facing half of the third floor.
It is staffls understanding that the recommendation to reduce the width was to shrink the adverse
impact on the viewplane, which would include the facade along the alleyway. The Connor Cabin
Lofts are attached as Exhibit D to illustrate the effectiveness of pulling in the upper floor level in
response to the historic viewplane. Staff finds that the intrusion into the viewplane is not
insignificant and recommends that HPC continue to require alternatives to mitigate the intrusion,
for example reducing the height and/or the width of the upper floor.
It is important to consider the significance of the Hotel Jerome viewplane, which originates from
three different points. It is Staffs opinion that the building must either meet the viewplane
regulations or be brought into closer compliance with the viewplane regulation in order for HPC
to deem the intrusion a minimal impact. Further along in the application process, the viewplane
intrusion may be an issue for other decision making boards and Staff recommends that the issue
be indisputably resolved at HPC.
HPC should be advised that view plane exemptions are typically granted in cases when the
construction in the view plane is truly minimal. Community Development Staff has concerns
that the proposed intrusion into the view plane could be significant. Councilwoman Rachel
Richards has asked staff to remind the HPC that future impacts to the view plane were of concern
to some Council members at the time that this property was de-listed from the historic inventory.
6
~/ .~
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds this to be a successful design overall and is eager to see it
move through Conceptual approval. However, important aspects of the HPC's input regarding
the upper floor's intrusion in the viewplane and the space between the new construction and Genre
Building have not been adequately addressed. Staff recommends that the application be continued
in order to resolve these issues.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Commercial Design Standards
C. 308 E. Hopkins Integrity Assessment
D. Connor Cabin Lofr Elevation
E. Minutes from HPC Hearing, June 14, 2006
F. Application
~ ~
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Conceptual Review"
13.2 Orient a new building parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building
orientations.
^ The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street.
13.3 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
^ Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial
buildings, this should be a recessed entry way.
^ Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
^ Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger
buildings.
13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
^ Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce
perceived scale.
^ Balconies, court yards and decks are also encouraged.
^ Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be
covered or protected and clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the
primary street-side entrance.
13.8 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge.
^ Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible.
^ Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
^ Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements
to define the sidewalk edge.
13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
^ The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of
the downtown.
^ Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular,
the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen
traditionally.
13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ In general, a proposed three-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact
on smaller, historic structures nearby.
^ The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale with nearby
historic buildings.
13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to
buildings seen historically.
^ Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to
suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design,
facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered.
These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the
composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings.
13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
^ Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
^ The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and
projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form.
8
~. ^,
./
13.13 Use flat roof lines as the domiuant roof form.
^ A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form.
^ Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building.
^ False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
13.14 Along a rear facade, usiug building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is
encouraged.
^ Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived
scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure.
^Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility
structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity.
13.19 Maiutaiu the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a
block.
^ Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to
establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians.
a Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by
the upper floor(s).
^Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront.
.-,
r
Exhibit B: Commercial Design Standards.
The following design standards shall apply to commercial, lodging, and mixed-use development:
A. Building Relationship to Primary Street.
A street wall is comprised of buildings facing principal streets and public pedestrian spaces.
Consistent street walls provide a sense of a coherent district and frame an outdoor room.
Interruptions in this enclosure can lessen the quality of a commercial street. Corner buildings are
especially important, in that they are more visible and their scale and proportion affects the street
walls of two streets. Well-designed and located pedestrian open spaces can positively affect the
quality of the district, while remnant or lefrover spaces can detract from the downtown. A
building's relationship to the street is entirely important to the quality of the downtown
pedestrian environment. Split-level retail and large vertical separations from the sidewalk can
disrupt the coherence of a retail district. The following standards shall apply:
1. Building facades shall be parallel to the adjoining primary streets. Minor elements of the
building fagade may be developed at irregular angles.
2. Building facades along primary streets shall be setback no more than the average setback
of the adjoining buildings and no less than the minimum requirement of the particular
zone district. Exempt from this provision are building setbacks accommodating On-Site
Pedestrian Amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
3. Building facades along primary streets shall maintain a consistent setback on the first and
second story.
4. Commercial buildings shall be developed with the first floor at, or within two (2) feet
above, the level of the adjoining sidewalk, or right-of--way if no sidewalk exists. "Split-
level" retail frontage is prohibited.
5. Commercial buildings incorporating a setback from a primary street shall not incorporate
a substantial grade change between the building facade and the public right-of--way.
"Moats" surrounding buildings are prohibited.
B. Pedestrian Amenity Space.
Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting, and vital
downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere.
Pedestrian amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-
of-way or private property within commercial areas.
On parcels required to provide pedestrian amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030 -Pedestrian
Amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the
method or combination of methods of providing the Pedestrian Amenity shall be at the option of
the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable,
according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards:
1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site pedestrian amenity sufficiently allow for a
variety of uses and activities to occur considering any expected tenant and future potential
tenants and uses.
10
2. The pedestrian amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this
characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade
trees, solar access, view orientation, and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent
rights-of--way are encouraged.
3. The pedestrian amenity, and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent
structures, rights-of--way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks, or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
5. Any variation to the Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section
26.575.030(F) promote the purpose of the pedestrian amenity requirements.
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as
applicable, may reduce the pedestrian amenity requirement by any amount, such that no
more than half the requirement is waived, as an incentive for well-designed projects
having a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment. The resulting requirement
may not be less than 10%. On-site provision shall not be required for a reduction in the
requirement. A mix of uses within the proposed building that enliven the surrounding
pedestrian environment may be considered.
C. Street-Level Building Elements.
The "storefront," or street-level portion of a commercial building is perhaps the single most
important element of a commercial district building. Effective storefront design can make an
entire district inviting and pedestrian friendly. Unappealing storefront design can become a
detriment to the vitality of a commercial district. In order to be an effective facility for the sale
of goods and services, the storefront has traditionally been used as a tool to present those goods
and services to the passing pedestrian (potential customer). Because of this function, the
storefront has traditionally been as transparent as possible to allow maximum visibility to the
interior. The following standards shall apply:
1. Unarticulated, blank walls aze prohibited. Fenestration, or an alternate means of fagade
articulation, is required on all exterior walls.
2. Retail buildings shall incorporate, at a minimum, a 60% fenestration ratio on exterior
street-level walls facing primary streets. (For example: each street-level wall of a retail
building that faces a primary street must be comprised of at least 60% fenestration
penetrations and no more than 40% solid materials.) This provision may be reduced or
waived for lodging properties with no, or limited, street-level retail, office buildings with
no retail component, and for Service/Commercial/Industrial buildings.
3. Building entrances shall be well-defined and apparent.
4. Building entrances shall be designed to accommodate an internal airlock such that
temporary seasonal airlocks on the exterior of the building are unnecessary.
5. Non-traditional storefronts, such as along an alleyway, are encouraged
11
i.. a
D. Parking.
Parking is a necessary component of a successful commercial district. The manner in which
parking is physically accommodated has a lazger impact upon the quality of the district that the
amount of parking. Surface parking separating storefronts from the street creates a cluttered,
inhospitable pedestrian environment. A downtown retail district shaped by buildings, well-
designed storefronts, and a continuous street wall is highly preferred over a district shaped by
parking lots. Well-placed and well-designed access points to pazking garages can allow
convenient parking without disrupting the retail district. The following standards shall apply:
1. Parking shall only be accessed from alleyways, unless such access is unavailable or an
unreasonable design solution in which case access from a primary street shall be designed
in a manner that minimizes disruption of the pedestrian environment.
2. Surface parking shall not be located between the Street right-of--way and the building
facade.
3. Above grade pazking gazages in commercial districts shall incorporate ground-floor
commercial uses and be designed in a manner compatible with surrounding buildings and
uses.
4. Above grade parking gazages shall not reveal internal ramping on the exterior fagade of
the building.
E. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision.
When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building
can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one building can
detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are
important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply:
1. A utility, trash, and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting
the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060 Utility/Trash/Recycle Service .
Areas, unless otherwise established according to said section.
2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley.
Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall
be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site
conditions, such as a historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments
shall be properly licensed.
3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility
shall be an integral component of the building. Shazed facilities aze highly encouraged.
4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking gazage ventilation, shall be vented through the
roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as faz away from the Street as practical.
5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of--way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs.
12
~/
Suggested Design Elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the
City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not
produce the most-desired development and project designers should use their best judgment.
A. signage:
signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage
areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc. may minimize new tenant
signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public wayfinding
function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building
on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory.
B. Display windows:
Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail
space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian
interest.
C. Li~~
Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create
pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch
attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain
important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass
should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the
City's Outdoor Lighting code, Section 26.575.050, is mandatory.
D. Original Townsite Articulation:
Buildings spanning more than one Original Townsite Lot should incorporate fagade
expressions coincidental with these original parcel boundaries to reinforce historic scale.
This may be inappropriate in some circumstances, such as on large corner lots.
E. Architectural Features:
Parapet walls should be used to shield mechanical equipment from pedestrian views. Aligning
cornices and other azchitectural features with adjacent buildings can relate new buildings to
their historical surroundings. Awnings and canopies can be used to provide azchitectural
interest and shield windows and entryways from the elements.
13
EXHIBIT C
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- 19T" CENTURY MINER'S COTTAGE, 308 E. HOPHINS
AVENUE
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place
where the historic event occurred.
5- The structure is in its original location.
4- The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original
alignment and proximity to the street.
3- The structure has been moved to another site, still within the historic Aspen
townsite.
0- The structure has been moved to a location which is dissimilar to the original site.
Staff Response: 5 points are merited. This structure is in its original location.
TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 5) = 5
DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and
style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10-The original plan form, based on Sanborne maps or other authenticating
documentation, is unaltered and there are no recent additions.
8- The structure has been expanded but the original plan form is intact and the addition(s)
would meet the design guidelines.
6- The plan form has been more altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines.
4- The structure has been expanded in a less desirable manner, but if the addition were
removed, at least 50% of the building's original walls would remain.
2- The structure has been expanded and the addition overwhelms the original structure ,
destroying more than 50% of the building's original walls.
0- Two historic structures have been linked together and the original character of the
individual structures is significantly affected.
Staff Response: 2 points are merited. The west side of the building has been removed to
create an addition. There is also new construction at the back of the house. The front
porch that existed historically on the house is gone.
ROOF FORM
10-The original roof form and the original porch roof, if one existed, are unaltered.
8- The original main roof is intact but the porch roof, if one existed, has been altered.
14
~r
6- Dormers have been added to the structure or additions have been made that alter the roof
form, but the changes would meet the design guidelines.
2- Alterations to the roof have been made in a less sensitive manner, not in conformance with
the design guidelines.
0- Less than 50% of the original roof form remains.
Staff Response: 0 points are merited. The original roof form can still be seen over the
historic house, however it bas been overframed with new construction on the north and
west sides.
SCALE
5- The original one story scale of the building, and its character as a small cottage is intact.
4- The building has been expanded, but the ability to perceive the original size of the
3 or 4 room home, is preserved.
3- The building has been expanded and the scale of the original portion is
discernible.
0- The scale of the building has been negatively affected by a large addition,
whose features do not reflect the scale or proportions of the historic structure.
Staff Response: 2 points are merited. The building is still one story, and it is possible to
make out the miner's cottage at the front. However, the building is much wider and longer
than it was historically and it is difficult to tell when the old construction ends and the new
starts.
FRONT PORCH
10-The front porch is not enclosed and original decorative woodwork remains, or if there
was no porch historically, none has been added.
8- The front porch is enclosed but maintains an open character and some original materials.
6- The front porch is not original, but has been built in an accurate manner, per the design
guidelines.
2- The front porch has been enclosed and most original materials are gone.
0- The front porch is completely gone or replaced with a porch which would not meet the
design guidelines.
Staff Response: 0 points are merited. The front porch has been totally enclosed.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10-The typical door and window pattern on the original house is intact- two doors off the
front porch, large double hung windows in gable ends, and tall, narrow double hung
windows placed "sparsely" on building walls.
8- Less than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building are new and the
original door and window openings are intact.
2- More than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building are new and/or
some of the original opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most or all of the original door and window openings have been altered.
15
'•.,
Staff Response: 0 points are merited. Only one window remains that may be original.
SIMPLICITY OF DESIGN
5- The overall sense of "modesty" in design and detailing on the original structure is intact.
0- New, non-historic trim and other decoration have been added to the building and have
altered its character.
Staff Response: 0 points are merited. All of the original trim appears to have been
removed.
TOTAL POINTS (MAxIMUM of 50) = 4
SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
PROXIMITY TO SIMILAR STRUCTURES
5- The structure is one of a set (at least three) of buildings from the same period in the
immediate area.
3- The building is part of a neighborhood that has numerous remaining buildings from the
same period.
0- The building is an isolated example from the period.
Staff Response: 3 points are merited. There is one Victorian to the east of this house, and
a high concentration of historic resources in the area.
HISTORIC LANDSCAPE FEATURES
5- A number of elements of the original landscape are in place, including historic fences,
walkways, plant materials and trees, and ditches.
3- Few or no elements of the original landscape are present, but the current landscape
supports the historic character of the home.
0- The current landscape significantly obscures views of the structure.
Staff Response: 0 points are merited. There is no original landscape present.
TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 10) = 3
MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
16
EXTERIOR WOODWORK
10-Most of the original woodwork, including clapboard siding, decorative shingles in gable
ends, trim, fascia boards, etc. remain.
6- Original siding has been replaced, but trim and other elements remain.
6- Original siding is intact but trim or other elements have been replaced.
0- All exterior materials have been removed and replaced.
Staff Response: 0 points are merited. It does not appear that any original materials
remain.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10-All or most of the original door and window units are intact.
8- Some window and door units have been replaced, but with generally accurate
reconstructions of the originals.
6- Most of the original windows have been replaced, but with generally accurate
reconstructions of the originals.
0- Windows and/or doors units have been replaced with inappropriate
patterns or styles.
Staff Response: 0 points are merited. There is no more than one original window left.
TOTAL POINTS (mAxtmuM of 20) =0
WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or
people during any given period in history or prehistory.
DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION
5- The original detailing is intact.
3- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its stylistic
category.
1- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original structure.
0- The detailing is gone.
Staff Response: 0 points are merited. The detailing is gone.
FINISHES
5- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry unpainted.
4- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry is painted.
3- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance but masonry is
unpainted.
0- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance and the masonry is painted.
Staff Respouse: 0 points are merited. Some of the wood siding bas had stucco applied to it.
17
,., . r
TOTAL POINTS (rvtnxtrvturvt of 10) = 0
ASSOCIATION Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person
and a historic property.
5- The property would be generally recognizable to a person who lived in Aspen in the 19`h
century.
TOTAL POINTS (rvtAxtniurvt of 5) = 0 points are merited.
BONUS POINTS
UNIQUE EXAMPLE
5-The design of the building is unique or one of a small group among the miner's cottages.
(i.e.It has Italianate or Second Empire detailing.)
OUTBUILDINGS
5-There are outbuildings on the properly that were built during the same period as the house.
MASONRY
5-Original brick chimneys and/or a stone foundation remains.
PATINA/CHARACTER
5-The materials have been allowed to acquire the character of age and are obviously
weathered.
Staff Response: 0 bonus points are merited.
TOTAL SCORE BY STAFF= 12
lg
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Land Use Application
Determination Of Completeness
Date: January 23, 2007
Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant,
-.
.,
We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number,
name, and property identification ntunber assigned to this property are 0057.2006.ASLU, 308 E.
Hopkins Ave., and 2737-073-29-007, respectively. I will be handling this case.
DYour Land Use Application is incomplete:
We Found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed
complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission
contents for you application:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing
your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed
above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the
land use application.
^X Your Land Use Application is complete:
If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete
to begin the land use review process.
Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by
the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2780 if you have any
questions.
You,
J sica GarroY~ , P nner
ity of Aspe , C mmunity Development Department
G:\cityUessica\Cases\La Cocina\CompletenessLetter_LaCocina.doc
~~
27291
JW VENTURE LLC
check #1062
CITY OF ASPEN
Permit Receipt
RECEIPT NUMBER 00019734
Date: 11 /7/2006
Fee Description Amount
Cal fee to Receipt Deposit 2,700.00
Aspen Engineer Referral 2006 376.00
Aspen Housing Referral 2006 376.00
Aspen Parks Referral 2006 376.00
Total: 3,828.00
V
A
V
f!~
iYl
LA COCINA PROPERTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION
W
~.
w
4
..
..
+~.
..
r
.a
wr
..
.,
..
A GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT
OF THE
LA COCINA PROPERTY
Submitted by:
JW Ventures, LLC
P.O. Box 8769
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-6553
October 30, 2006
Prepared by:
VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC
Planning Consultants
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-6958
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
PLANNER
SURVEYOR
~Ma
.~,
..
..
A
~.
s
I
s
r
^.
r
.w
..
w
Y..
Sunny Vann, AICP
Vann Associates, LLC
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-6958
ARCHITECT
Charles Cunniffe, AIA
Charles Cunniffe Architects
610 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-5590
ATTORNEY
Leonard M. Oates, Esq.
Oates Knezevich & Gardenswartz, PC
533 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920-1700
1
Jeffrey Allen Tuttle, L.S.
Tuttle Surveying Services
226 Heather Lane
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 928-9708
CIVIL ENGINEER
Jay Hammond, P.E.
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
118 West 6th. Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-1004
...
r,.
,~,
w.
..~
r
r
r
r
...
r
«.
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PROJECT SITE 4
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 29
A. Growth Management 29
B. Subdivision 34
C. Condominiumization 40
D. Vested Property Rights 41
APPENDIX
A. Exhibit 1, Pre-Application Conference
Summary
Exhibit 2, HPC Resolution No. 6, Series
of 2001
Exhibit 3, HPC Resolution No. 18, Series
of 2006
Exhibit 4, Title Insurance Policy
Exhibit 5, Permission to Represent
Exhibit 6, Land Use Application Form
Exhibit 7, Dimensional Requirements
Form
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
,.
w.
..
Section
Page
~,
r
..
..
~.
,,.
r
r
,~
•
r
APPENDIX
Exhibit 8, Application Fee Agreement
Exhibit 9, List of Adjacent Property
Owners
B. Exhibit 1, Existing La Cocina Building
Floor Plans and Elevations
Exhibit 2, Schmueser Gordon Meyer
Engineering Letter
Exhibit 3, Utility Easement
Exhibit 4, License Agreement
C. Exhibit 1, COMDEV Administrative
Determination
Exhibit 2, COMDEV Land Use Interpretation
Exhibit 3, COMDEV Interim Policy
111
1. INTRODUCTION
The following application requests two free market residential and three affordable
housing growth management quota system ("GMQS") allotments for the development of
a mixed use commercial/residential project on the former La Cocina restaurant property,
w
,,. which is located at 308 East Hopkins Avenue in the City of Aspen (see Pre-Application
Conference Summary, Exhibit 1, Appendix A, attached hereto). The proposed develop-
"' ment will also require subdivision approval, as it contains multiple dwelling units, and
.~
condominiumization approval to permit the sale of its free market residential component.
Vested property rights is requested for all approvals granted pursuant to this application.
The existing La Cocina building was removed from the City's Inventory of
w
Historic Sites and Structures by the Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") in
„~ February of 2001 (see Resolution No. 6, Exhibit 2, Appendix A). The building,
._ however, is located within the City's Commercial Core Historic District. As a result,
"' any redevelopment of the property is subject to HPC review and approval. Given the
~.
scope of the project, HPC approval of both a conceptual and final development plan is
required. Conceptual major development approval was granted by the HPC on July 12,
,,,,, 2006 (see Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006, Exhibit 3, Appendix A). An application
.. for final development approval will be submitted to the HPC following the receipt of all
other required land use approvals. Please note that the HPC exempted the proposed
'~ development from the City's mountain view plane regulations based on a finding of no
,~.
significant impact. The HPC also granted commercial design review approval to the
,~ project and approved a reduction in its required pedestrian amenity space.
..
The application is submitted by JW Ventures, LLC (hereinafter "Applicant"), the
owner of the property (see Title Insurance Policy, Exhibit 4, Appendix A). Permission
...
.,. for Vann Associates, LLC, Planning Consultants, to represent the Applicant is attached
r
1
as Exhibit 5, Appendix A. Aland use application form, dimensional requirements form,
application fee agreement, and a list of property owners located within three hundred feet
-° of the project site are attached as Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 9, respectively.
,,, The application is submitted pursuant to the land use regulations that were in
effect at the time of submission of the Applicant's conceptual HPC application. The
"' applicable regulations are the June 2005 reprint of Title 26, Land Use Regulations, of
the Aspen Municipal Code, including all amendments thereto enacted prior to January
...
23, 2006 (the "Regulations"). The relevant amendments are believed to include all
.~ ordinances through City Council Ordinance No. 51 which was adopted on January 9,
2006. The applicability of the prior regulations is based on the provisions of CRS
Sections 24-68-102(1) and 24-68-102.5(1) which permit multi-step applications to be
processed pursuant to the land use regulations in effect at the time of the submittal of the
initial application.
.w
.~
The application is divided into four sections. Section I provides a brief
introduction to the application while Section II describes the project site. Section III of
the application outlines the Applicant's development proposal while Section IV addresses
the proposal's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Regulations. For the
"" reviewer's convenience, all pertinent documents relating to the project (e.g., title
,~.
documents, prior approval documents, etc.) are provided in the appendices to the
application.
' While this application is intended to address all relevant provisions of the Regula-
tions, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the
proposed development, questions may arise which require further information and/or
W
,,, clarification. The Applicant will provide such additional information as may be required
in the course of the application's review.
,,, 2
,~
~..
..
w,
w
r
.~
,~
w
,~
~~
w
11~
~L
~~
/ I \ ''
II. PROJECT SITE
µW The project site is legally described as Lots M and N, Block 80, City and
,T Townsite of Aspen. As the Improvement Location Survey on the following page
W. illustrates, the lots are located on the north side of Hopkins Avenue between South
'"" Monarch and South Mill Streets. The property contains a total area of 6,032 square feet
..
and is zoned CC, Commercial Core. Man-made improvements to the property consist
of a modest frame structure with a partial second floor that was formerly occupied by the
..
.,,, La Cocina restaurant; a small detached shed; an outdoor dining patio; and a paved
a~.. parking area which is located adjacent to the alley at the rear of the site. Existing
vegetation is limited to two ten inch pine trees, two smaller Aspen trees, several
:..
chokecherry trees, and various ornamental shrubs. The trees are located between the
..
Hopkins Avenue sidewalk and the front of the building while the various bushes and
,,, shrubs are located within the patio area.
.~
The existing La Cocina building contains a total of 2,745 square feet of net
,M leasable commercial area (see Existing Floor Plans and Elevations, Exhibit 1, Appendix
.. B). This figure includes the restaurant's bar and lounge area, its dining rooms, the
"' kitchen and its associated food preparation areas, a service area, and a small office which
is located on the building's second floor. The building's restrooms, storage and
mechanical areas have been excluded from the calculation of existing net leasable area
M, as provided for in Section 26.104.100 of the Regulations. The Applicant will verify the
,., former restaurant's existing net leasable area with the City's Zoning Officer prior to
"' demolition. An extension of the one year reconstruction limitation imposed pursuant to
~'~ Section 26.470.070.A. is requested for that portion of the commercial reconstruction
credit which cannot be utilized at this time. The need for an extension is addressed in
~, more detail in Section III of this application
...
4
ti
a
ti
m
o
~ N
E 5 8
8 8
~ r Y a ^
pg 8t„ a~ 5$ ygyg e ~
~j ~ r.~ E -~igb~ °4gi a~~y a a8 pp~~ •4~ ~ eE~ 6y°4 Li ~ N Cw
~ ~ ~ _d @' ~3~8 ~~F~~~k € $~ t~: aEf ~ ~ ~~}Ega~~a~-6 ~ `V
r~ ~ ~« o ~s ~~ a-~ $y~ ~~ na ~ai ,~~ s a ' #~~~~ s~ ~ fq
~ ~~~x~ !S a¢~~ a $~ a~~a e e ~ ~8g ~`d~ 82tS ~N
~\ o _ ~~ Ida i~~~ ~ ;, ~~ ~~9~~ ~ ~ ~~~~8~i~s~~~~ '~ ~
N~'J ~ °f~ `a~ fagga y~ ~~ ~~ ~1 €8j~~ ° ~ ~ ~~~~~2s~s~g~e O' 0
ti ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~o~~ ~,V
~~~ w~,
~ ~,
~'o~ p~
~~~ "~~
~, ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~p
1V ~ t ~ d lo? (~~(~~ f
o ~" `~
~ ~ ~ ~~ g~
V
~.~~~g ~~ ~
o ao? ~ aaBg `fv
kao~ ~~$
p €~E ~ s
'A!( 3 W
A(~ ~ ~ '~Mi T„ a (~~
W\ . ~ ~ M1 W
V ~ ~KSrvpj't~s a
~ ~ '~ ~
ti a°, ~ ~ i1
Rio `1 `ti
~ ~° ~- ~ N ~
~~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c ~ ,
N
a
T ~ ~~A `a`VA~.A ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~
\~ ss~~
~ ~,~. O\., ~ 1~N
s ~
v
O ~ bq
y ~~
-f' dop ~ ~ a m
\l'' , ~ ~ ~
~o~o
n r
~`c°+;~
tam 9
v o q
X30
~pfpNU~
!i ~a~
Existing development in the immediate site area includes the Wells Fargo Bank
building, which is located at the northwest comer of the intersection of Hopkins Avenue
.., and South Mill Street; the A.G. Sheppard house, which is located at the northeast corner
~^^ of Hopkins Avenue and South Monarch Street; and the Katie Reed Plaza and Mill Street
.. Plaza commercial buildings which are located on the south side of Hopkins Avenue
across from the project site. A small, historically designated structure which was most
recently occupied by Genre Restaurant is located between the project site and the Wells
.. Fargo bank building. A two-story, contemporary structure housing the Range and
Elevations restaurants is located between the project site and the A.G. Sheppard house,
~.
which is also historically designated.
The project site is presently served by all major utilities. As the attached letter
'° from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Consulting Engineers, indicates, (see Exhibit 2,
Appendix B), an eight inch sanitary sewer is located in the alley at the rear of the site.
Water service is provided from a six inch water main located in Hopkins Avenue.
..
,.~ Electric, telephone, cable TV and natural gas service is readily available as evidenced
w by an electric transformer located in the northwest comer of the project site, various
'"" telephone and cable TV pedestals located within the alley, and a natural gas meter which
,..
is attached to the rear of the existing building. An existing fire hydrant is conveniently
located at the northwest corner of Mill Street and Hopkins Avenue. Stormwater runoff
,,., from the roof of the existing building and the site's impervious areas presently drains to
either Hopkins Avenue or the alley.
An easement for the electric transformer was granted by the property's former
owner to the City, Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, and Micro Cable
"` Communications, Inc. in 1976 to accommodate the undergrounding of utilities in the
immediate site area (see Exhibit 3, Appendix B). As the Improvement Survey illustrates,
,..
6
the project site is also encumbered with a revocable license agreement between the
~. property's former owner and the owner of the commercial structure located immediately
"" east of the property (see Exhibit 4, Appendix B). The purpose of the license agreement
~w is to allow maintenance of the adjacent structure, a portion of whose roof encroaches
upon the project site.
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
~- The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure and to replace it with
`^ anew three-story, mixed use commercial/residential building. The majority of the new
building's ground floor will abut the Hopkins Street right-of-way. A portion of the
ground floor, however, will be set back from the property line to accommodate an
..
~, outdoor dining patio. This area constitutes the project's "Pedestrian Amenity Space"
a+ which has been approved by the HPC. An enclosed airlock will provide access to the
ground floor from the existing adjacent sidewalk. Access to the building's upper floors
~.
will be provided via a small entry courtyard located on the east side of the structure.
.. Two interior elevators and a series of stairways will connect the building's ground floor
,_, with the two upper floors and a subgrade basement. The basement will also be directly
accessible from the sidewalk via an additional stairway located on the building's west
'° side. A trash/utility service area and three on-site parking spaces are proposed adjacent
..~ to the alley.
`" As the schematic floor plans on the following pages illustrate, the building's
ground floor will be devoted entirely to commercial use. As presently envisioned, the
Syzygy restaurant, which is presently located at 520 East Hyman Avenue, will relocate
,~ to this space. Approximately 2,512 square feet of the existing La Cocina building's
2,745 square foot commercial reconstruction credit will be used to develop the proposed
'^' ground floor restaurant. Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.A.7. of the Regulations, existing
.~ 7
-, 4»0~
j ~~- - /
it ~
_ v
zo ~ ~_
n z~
o ~ % u
d io'/ E
E
/ ~
_
~-
\ U
_
\
c u
U
i v r
~U
U o
U
~ U- 9O ..
U
m
m a°
u ~
u_
Vim,
Y
i V
~ 1
Jl W
N E
x m
m w°
//
/\ \`~
% ~, \ `\
~ ~~~ ~ -
~ /
~ ,
~ ~
L /
~ `
\ ` ~
~aa~ ~~~ ~~a~
oW ~_ ~ o,
c
~_
u°v
z m
u pv
~ ui,
~ ~
4~
I}
m
ya
~{~
W
7 n~,
i
.~
20~
Z
..
w
r
~r
Nv
p1
W
r
r
r
.~
r
,..
+.
....
~ ~~
I
~ I
~ ~ s
I `
0
I
I ~
STORAGE ~
4REA
~ v
~
c
i
i
STORAGE
i b
V STORAGE {
C
STORAGE
FUTURE GOMMERGIAU
L?. GOGINA REDEVELOPMENT I/16"
i0 -30 - 2006 ___ _ _ ._ BASEMENT_ LEVEL
..
JYY
,rr
v
w
.a
....
..
..
Existl~g
Boildin9
~~ ~ ~
E+ st ng
eo~ming
LA GOGINA REDEVELOPMENT I/16"
10 - 30__.2006 _._ GROUND LEVEL
rr
Yr
r
Ww
qy
W
ar
er
rYIY
.r
...
~_ a-~- I ~
S S
T AFFORDAELE AFFORDABLE AFFORDABLE
- HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING -
UNIT UNIT UNIT
EGK DECK
16EDRGGM UNIT SNDIO UNIT I BEDROOM UNIT
^ o
I
I
^ ^
J I I I
I I
L __ _ __ I I
I -
I I I
I
I I 5
HALL
S
~ 4
C
KITLHEN
BATHROOM ^
HALL
FREE MARKET
1
BEDROOM -
GREAT ROOM
p h
I
I
DECK I
I
V
~
~- I
II _
i
L----------- ---- JL
LA GOGINA REDEVELOPMENT_,.___________1116"
10 -30 - 2006 __ MID LEVEL
~Fw
m.e
p Y
c S
s
6EDROGM
I
MA=TER
A
I -EDROOM
I
BE DROGM -----, r-
I
I I I
I I ~
I I I
~ I I I
_____ I___J I
I
I
I
I I
-- -I o --'
s
-- -- ;
I
.i
f ~
I
~ ~
FREE MARKET
DECK 9
b b
~
Ww
r
..
K.
LP~GO REDE~/ELOPMENT I/16"
10 - 30 - 2006 UPPER_ LEVEL
commercial net leasable area may be demolished and reconstructed exempt from growth
.r management and affordable housing mitigation. The proposed ground floor restaurant
,,,,, will contain seating for approximately eighty people, an adjacent bar area, the
- restaurant's kitchen, men's and women's restrooms, and back of house facilities (e.g.,
~"' dry and refrigerated storage, etc.).
-~. The building's second floor will contain a one bedroom, free market residential
"~ unit and three deed restricted affordable housing units. Two of the units will each
contain one bedroom and the remaining unit will be configured as a studio. The free
market unit will contain approximately 1,447 square feet of net livable area. The two
1-bedroom affordable housing units will contain approximately 750 and 768 square feet
of net livable area, respectively, while the studio unit will contain approximately 594
square feet. The three affordable housing units will house a total of 4.75 employees, or
w 1.75 employees per one bedroom unit and 1.25 employees per studio unit. The
-, building's third floor will consist of a three bedroom, free market residential unit which
will contain approximately 3,500 square feet of net livable area.
The proposed development's two free market units and three affordable housing
units will require a GMQS allocation. While the annual residential quota in the CC,
~, Commercial Core, and C-1, Commercial, zone districts was reduced to six units pursuant
to Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2006, and the entire 2006 quota has been applied for, the
"' Community Development Department has confirmed that projects which commenced their
r
land use review process prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 12 are eligible fora 2006
residential allocation (see Exhibit 1, Appendix C). The amount of the available
,..
residential quota for such projects is believed to be nineteen units. Sufficient quota is
^° also available to accommodate the proposed affordable housing units as there is no annual
limitation on the number of units that may be allocated.
13
._ Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.6. of the Regulations, the development of new
~- free market residential units within a mixed use project requires the provision of
"" affordable housing mitigation in an amount equal to thirty percent of the free market
m.. floor area. As the floor area calculations on the following pages illustrate, the project's
two free market residential units will contain a total floor area of approximately 5,994
..~ square feet. Please note that this figure includes a prorata share of the building's non-
- unit floor area (e.g., corridors, stairways, etc.) as instructed by the Community
"`y Development Department (see Land Use Interpretation, Exhibit 2, Appendix C. As a
W result, a minimum of 1,798 square feet of affordable housing floor area must be
provided.
w. For purposes of calculating the equivalent number of employees that must be
q housed, the Community Development Department has determined that four hundred
.., square feet of affordable housing floor area equates to one full-time employee (see
-~ Interim Policy, Exhibit 3, Appendix C). As a result, a minimum of 4.5 employees must
be housed within the required affordable housing floor area to mitigate the proposed
w
development's free market component. The relevant calculations are as follows.
5,994 Sq. Ft. Free Market Floor Area x 0.30 = 1,798 Sq. Ft.
1,798 Sq. Ft. _ 400 Sq. Ft. = 4.5 Employees
The three on-site affordable housing units will house a total of 4.75 employees
i and contain approximately 2,632 square feet of floor area (inclusive of their prorata share
of the building's non-unit space), which exceeds the project's affordable housing
.. mitigation requirement. The units will be deed restricted and rented or sold pursuant to
.. the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's ("APCHA") Category 4 income and
occupancy guidelines. The units will be condominiumized upon substantial completion
of construction and deed restricted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
.~ 14
i
~..
~.
W
.+~
N. I
..
W
_ STREET LE~/EL
10.30.06
I/I6"
" ~ GOMMERGIAL (RESTAURANT)
~~ GIRGULATION
:,~.
W
W
r
LA COONA REDEVELOPMENT
ti~
308 EAST HOPpNB
ASPEN. COLORIOO
FAR
= 3,154 s.f
= ql8 s.f.
NET LEASABLE
= 2,512 s.f
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
vm~w.cunniHe.com
mo use mMw nn. nsrtrv,m nm inc vmv:sssso vu. vrosxwsn
ism r~x varc m..sn m • srtwewi svwe.w mwr me: sroezax • r.v: vraenmai
..
~.
r
I/I6"
FREE MARKET FAR NET LIVABLE DEGKS
,•, UNIT = 1,562 s.f. = 1,44 s.f. = 500 s.f.
~. ~ A.N.U. FAR
~
UNIT I = 835 s.f.
UNIT 2 = 630 s.f
""' UNIT 3 = 822 s.f.
""' A.H.U. TOTALS 2,287 s.f.
-.
~'
~ GIRGULATION
= 689 s.f.
w
LA COCINA REDEVELOPMENT
r
308 FAST HOPpNS
ASPEN. COLORADO
NET LIVABLE
= 768 s.f.
= 594 s.f.
= 750 s.f.
= 2,112 s.f.
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
www.cunniffe.com
ero fnsr XYMVi ~YF. nwyro mcn nt[:smfzs.s5fo F~x:sN9to-asn
rom wE wn ro.srt m~ • nruaai svgs, m uw • nu: smnsaso • ru-smersmw
I/I6"
r
GIRGULATION
MAIN LEVEL = 918 s.f.
MID LEVEL = 698 s.f.
'~ TOTAL = 1,607 st.
..,.
.•.e FREE MARKET = 5,208 s.f.
A.H.U. = 2,281 s.f.
., GOMMERGfAL = 3,154 s.f.
..~ TOTAL = 10,649 s.f.
...
625 EAST MAIN REDEVELOPMENT
~ 6T5 FAST AWN STREET
ASPEN. COLOR,S[~
r
PRD-RATED TOTAL
FAR FAR
48.9% 785.8 s.f. = 5,993.8 s.f.
21.59'0 345.5 s.f. = 2,632.5 s.f.
29.6% 4~5.~ s.f. = 3,629.1 s.f.
I,60~ s.f. ~ = 12,256 s.f
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
www.cunniHe.mm
cio ccn xrwH ~uT. •srtx,co men me:smm%ssso vu:sromwsn
,rm rwe wa vo.sn:m - svxawi smra.m mas su: sronsmn • rn vmmsmu
project's free market residential units. In the event the units are rented, an undivided
,,.., 1/10 of one percent interest will be conveyed to APCHA to comply with the State's
~' prohibition against rent control.
w.
,,,, As the floor plans illustrate, the proposed basement contains two storage areas,
-- one of which is earmarked for future commercial use. The future commercial area is
accessible both from within the building via a stairway and elevator and from the
Hopkins Street sidewalk via an additional dedicated stairway. As presently envisioned,
..
this area will be converted to commercial use and utilized as a nightclub and/or for
._ special event dining for the ground floor restaurant. While the remainder of the
property's existing commercial reconstruction credit will be applied towards the
"' development of the proposed basement club/dining space, insufficient commercial quota
is available for the 2006 growth management year to accommodate this additional
commercial area at this time.
'~ The Applicant will submit an application for a commercial GMQS allotment on
March 1, 2007, which is currently the first day of the 2007 growth management year.
..
As it is currently unknown how long it will take to obtain the required GMQS allocation,
-- an extension of the one year deadline for the reconstruction of existing commercial net
'" leasable area will be required. Pursuant to Section 26.470.070.A. of the Regulations,
"~ the City Council may grant an extension upon a demonstration of good cause. As no
demonstrable benefit would be derived from the extinguishment of the remainder of the
...
existing La Cocina reconstruction credit, the Applicant respectfully requests that the one
year deadline for submission of a building permit application be extended to two years
"" to accommodate the project's additional approval requirements.
~..
w The maximum height of the proposed building is thirty-five feet measured to the
^°~ top of the highest point of the third floor roof. As the building elevations on the
18
...
.~
r1
i/
w
w.
.r
..r
~,~,
~,
..
_. .
-.<
U,
i
f
i
~.
r'
i
{2
'! .i
t '
~~ i
i
{~
U
FW-
U«
Q°
LL~
2
w
n
~i
U~
~_~
K H
20
Um~
ti
W
a
0
W
~o
C~
20
VU
QVW
~.Iy
a
~.
w
.,.
r
r
.r
~I I
I I I
~a I I. I
~I
n ~" g
~~ 1 4~w I ~~~ I
~ w w
I
o I ~ LL I
~~ ; _ I
-~I,~
~I I
Gn IQ ry I to I d. X
n ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~~
Ja I ~~ i ~I, I ~; I
~ i ~~a I o~LL I z I~ I
4 a4 to ~ do
w
r
r
..
..
.Mr
a~
i
JO i
JO i
w0 i
JQ
~ a ~n I w~ ~ O
J Y1 i Ji( 1 ~ J = i J O
~
R
>!~ o I ~~> I = w I
<
F
R w ~ Iw
(
O ~
4
' lO
F O
~ F
I I
J
i
I V
m ~
I I I
Q
~ ~
I I
I I ~ I
I I W I
Y
K
J I
~ W
a
'
o
I
I
w' I
~I
0
i of I
w
I l I
I w,
I
I
i ~ I
I
I
I W
I I
I I
I
I _
I I
~
I
~
I
0 a.
I a.,
0
p ry =_
fl_fl J
J
L
J
µ1
~
W
J
W
~ J W >
W W W
LLI WILL JIIL ZI1li
O
~IQ ~ ~
III ~
Ir
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
I
w l
1/-- I
~I
I~
I
I
i.
i ~~ i wo
J J (~
alp KI
I ~~ ~
~
~ J
I ~
I ~a
~
ti
_O
J
_~ ~
F w
w
J
J
f
\~II
JIi
J1
J i
>I
al
JI~~
~~ _~
1
~L
~ ~~>
I
w, I
j /
~
~ J J ' ~W
LL I ~LL I o LLl
I
(~ Q
I p o
~~
~ O ,
E~~
z '4
~q
i I~
.~
~.
r
W/
YW
aY/
I ~R I
I ~~ I
I ~ I
I ~~
i ~ I
I
I I
o I
~o
I ~R I
,
ryry ~ pJ~
W W
I W (
Q
j J J
LL Q
a
Z ~ W
I
~ I I
LL
~~
~ f J f
V I I I
III
I
__ I
,~,
I~
la
.h
m
'C
I
iW
rA
i~
7\
+~
r
r
.w
w.
r
r
r
JO I w0
~~R ~ ~w~"
¢y I ?J
F
¢O I O
I
I
`- i I
I
I
I
I ~_-
I ~m
I W~
J
LL
I ~Q
ry
JI
~I J
~ W
LL
,~ Q
w O
w~=
J -
~j
'W
~LL
~~
H
O
-~'
JW
~J
W
W
LL
~O
J
Z
E
Z
W
~.
,» following pages illustrate, both the second floor and third floor are setback to varying
"° degrees from the Hopkins Street property line. The building's third floor is also set back
.. from the alley. The height of the building measured at these points ranges from
approximately twenty-eight to thirty feet. The effect of these setbacks is to reduce the
,~, perceived mass of the building. The use of staggered plate heights within the building
-- further contributes to a reduction in the building's mass and minimizes the extent to
which it intrudes into the Hotel Jerome view plane. As presently configured, the
~~ proposed building's intrusion into the view plane is limited to a modest three feet three
inches. The HPC has determined that this intrusion has no significant impact and has
:.,
,,,, exempted the project from mountain view plane review as provided for in Section
26.435.OSO.B. of the Regulations.
_ A utility/trash service area measuring twenty feet by ten feet has been provided
at the rear of the building and abutting the alley. As the ground floor plan illustrates,
• this area has been designed to permit the retention of the existing electric transformer or
'" its replacement with a larger unit in the event required. The proposed service area will
..
also accommodate the relocation of any existing alley utility pedestals and the proposed
~. development's trash and recycling facilities. Should a larger transformer be required,
v
- the Applicant will grant a new, appropriately sized easement on the subdivision plat
"" which is [o be recorded concurrently with the project's subdivision agreement.
.,
,~ As noted in the introduction to this application, the HPC approved a reduction in
+- the proposed development's pedestrian amenity space in connection with commercial
`" design review. Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.D. of the Regulations, the HPC may
reduce the pedestrian amenity requirement by any amount provided that no more than
half the requirement is waived. While HPC Resolution No. 18 does not specify the
,,. amount of the reduction or the resulting pedestrian amenity space requirement, the site
r
w
24
plan provided in this application is consistent with that which received conceptual major
development approval. As the drawing on the following page illustrates, the project's
,,~ pedestrian amenity space totals approximately 480 square feet, which represents
-• approximately eight percent of the project site. As the applicable requirement is twenty-
` five percent, a seventeen percent reduction was apparently approved by the HPC.
Pursuant to Section 26.515.030 of the Regulations, one off-street parking space
per one thousand square feet of net leasable area, or the equivalent payment-in-lieu
thereof, must be provided for new commercial developments located within the "Aspen
Infill Area". The replacement of existing net leasable square footage, however, is
exempt from this requirement. As a result, no off-street parking is required to
~- accommodate the proposed development's ground floor restaurant as the development
'"' right for this space is derived from an existing commercial reconstruction credit. No off-
+~.
street parking is required for multi-family residential units located within the Infill Area
in a mixed-use building. Notwithstanding these requirements, the Applicant proposes to
„~ provide two on-site parking spaces for the building's two free market residential units
r. and one space for the three affordable housing units.
The future conversion of the basement storage space to net leasable commercial
area will require the provision of additional on-site parking or a payment-in-lieu of the
~~ required parking spaces. As no additional parking can realistically be provided, the
Applicant proposes to satisfy this requirement via apayment-in-lieu. The amount of the
payment will be calculated based on the regulations in effect at such time as the required
GMQS allotment is obtained and a building permit is issued for the conversion of the
.~ basement storage area to commercial use.
d The proposed development complies with the all of the dimensional requirements
of the CC, Commercial Core zone district. The building's height and total floor area are
25
® ' wowENS
FREEZER
`~~' ~ ,_ ~
n.. ~ ~ ~JCi BAR
~~~ ® kIEN ' ~ ~ ~ DRY
~~~\\ \\ \ ~ - STORAGE COOLER
"' ~ ~ ~`~.~~ ~~~`~.~ ~ ~ti~ ~~~ ~i~ - KITCHEN Idol I\ II~~~; Ilr~~]1~~
_ 1 ~~ L~ E~ ,-;,
~~ ~ ~f~ ~fL ~~L -
~ ``LL\ ~ RESTAIULRANT ~~LL f II J~~J11 I ~
mE ~ ~~ ~ ~E ~ fPL ~ mL ~ L JJ
uW "~i`' ~fL ~1~ ~1L ~~lu
~Jff ~( 'hF
^W
r
+w-
C,T~?F~T I 1-\/FI
..
r
w.
+Y
10.30.06
I/I6"
PEDESTRIAN AMENITY = 4"19.5 s.f.
•r
rr
w
rr
,., LA COCINA REDEVELOPMENT
M 308 FAST HOPR]NB
ASPEN. COLORADO
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
www.cunniffe.com
ma un mites AYE nsrtµm mw nlF:sro9zs-ssso ra: srouo-un
rsm rre mw w.sn zm srtwea. snw¢m ewn • me: smnsmv • rµ nrons.mm
significantly less than the maximum allowed while its pazking exceeds the applicable zone
m district requirements. The proposed free market units' floor area is within the maximum
allowed and the floor area of the on-site affordable housing units exceeds that which is
-. required for mitigation purposes. The project's development data and its compliance
'" with applicable regulatory requirements is summarized in Table 1, below.
Table 1
Development Data
Lots M and N, Block 80, Aspen Townsite
W 1. Existing Zoning CC , Commercial Core
_. 2. Existing Net Leasable Commercial 2,745
Area (Sq. Ft.)
~" 3. Existing Lot Size (Sq. Ft.)' 6,032
4. Minimum Required Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) No Requirement
~'
5. Minimum Required Lot Area/Dwelling No Requirement
Unit (Sq. Ft.)
6. Minimum Required Lot Width (Feet) No Requirement
'~ 7. Minimum Required Setbacks (Feet)
~.
Front Yard No Requirement
;, Side Yards No Requirement
~ Reaz YardZ No Requirement
.r 8. Maximum Allowable Height (Feet)' 42
9. Maximum Proposed Height (Feet)° 35
,,,~
10. Minimum Required Pedestrian Amenity 25
Space (Percent)
11. Approved Pedestrian Amenity 8
,
. Space (Percent)s
~
"~ 12. Maximum Allowable Floor Area 18,096
~~
a 27
Commercial Uses ~ 1.5:16 9,048
Free Market Residential ~ 1:1 6,032
Affordable Housing No Limitation
13. Proposed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 12,256
Commercial Uses' 3,630
Free Market Residential' 5,994
Affordable Housing' 2,632
.w
..,
w
•
M
..
,.
rr
.~.
..
r
.w
r
14. Proposed Floor Area Ratio 2.03
15. Proposed Net Leasable Commercial
Area (Sq. Ft.)
Ground Floor 2,512
Basement8 233
16. Minimum Required Parking
Commercial Uses @ 1 Space/1,000 None
Sq. Ft. Net Leasable9
Free Market Residential No Requirement
Affordable Housing No Requirement
17. Proposed Parking
Commercial Uses None
Free Market Residential 3
Affordable Housing None
' Per the Improvement Survey Plat prepared by Tuttle Surveying Services dated
March 20, 2006.
z A trash/utility service area is required abutting the alley pursuant to Section
26.575.060.
' Maximum allowable height may be increased to 46 feet for areas of a building set
back a minimum of 15 feet from lot lines adjoining a street right-of--way.
° Measured to the top of the third floor roof.
5 Previously approved by the HPC pursuant to Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006.
28
e May be increased to 2:1 if affordable housing equal to 60 percent of the
r
additional commercial floor area is developed on the same parcel.
' Includes a prorata share of the building's non-unit floor area.
~' s Addition basement commercial area will be subject to the receipt of a future
.,. commercial GMQS allotment.
"' 9 No parking is required as the development right for this area is derived from
~- existing reconstruction credits.
.W As discussed previously, all required utilities are available in the immediate site
area and are either adequate or may be easily upgraded to serve the proposed develop-
"' ment. All utility extensions will be located underground, and appropriate easements will
be dedicated to the various public utilities as may be required. Site grading will be
~.
limited to the excavation of the project's subgrade basement.
,,,
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
,,, The proposed development requires the receipt of both a free market residential
'~ and an affordable housing GMQS allocation. Subdivision and condominiumization
"~ approval are also required. Vested property rights status is requested for all approvals
r.
granted pursuant to this application. Each of these review requirements is discussed
,~ below.
A. Growth Management
~ The proposed building's 2,512 square feet of ground floor net leasable
commercial area and 233 square feet of the building's basement commercial area are
exempt from growth management as the development right for these spaces is derived
from existing reconstruction credits. The remainder of the building's basement
«~ commercial area, its two free market residential units, and its three on-site affordable
o' housing units, however, will require a GMQS allocation. The relevant GMQS exemption
,r 29
,..
and allocation requirements for the proposed free market residential and affordable
,;.
housing units are discussed below. The basement commercial area's compliance with the
applicable GMQS requirements will be addressed in a subsequent growth management
application to be submitted in 2007.
a.. 1. Remodeling or Replacement of Existing Commercial Develop-
ment. Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.A.7. of the Regulations, the remodeling or
A
replacement after demolition of existing commercia area is exempt from growth
.~,
management and its associated mitigation requirements provided that no additional net
~ leasable square footage is created. As discussed previously, the existing La Cocina
a. building contains 2,745 square feet of net leasable commercial area. This reconstruction
credit will be confirmed with the City's Zoning Officer prior to demolition as required
pursuant to Section 26.470.070.B. A one year extension of the Regulation's reconstruc-
lion deadline will be required to preserve the portion of the existing reconstruction credit
.«.
„r to be used in the future conversion of a part of the basement to commercial use.
2. Free Market residential Units within aMixed-Use Project. The
r
development of new or the expansion of existing free market residential units within a
..
,. mixed-use project shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission subject to
° compliance with the following criteria.
..
,~, a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to
accommodate the uses pursuant to Section 21i.470.030.D., Annual Development
'~ Allotments.
ar.
~ As discussed previously, the Community Development Department has
R,. determined that sufficient free market residential quota is available in the 2006 growth
management year to accommodate the proposed development (see Administrative
Determination, Exhibit 1, Appendix C.
r
,.
..
r
30
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area
` Community Plan.
a ~ The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan ("AACP") contains no site
specific recommendations with respect to the project site. The proposed development is
«.
a mixed use commercial/residential project which complies with the applicable
.~
requirements of the CC, Commercial Core, zone district. The project includes
.~.
replacement commercial square footage and both free market and affordable housing
"~ units, all of which have been determined to be appropriate uses in the downtown
""" commercial core. The project's architectural design has received conceptual major
...
development approval from the HPC. The proposed development is consistent with the
AACP and with the City's expressed desire to stimulate commercial redevelopment.
'~ More specifically, the proposed development is consistent with the AACP's
w
T, "Managing Growth" section as it falls within the available annual growth management
~,,, allotment; is located within the City's Urban Growth Boundary; and fosters a well
"` balanced community through its mix of on-site commercial, free market residential and
.. affordable housing uses. With respect to the AACP's "Transportation" section, the
.. project site lends itself to pedestrian friendly lifestyles and is located in close proximity
..
to the Roaring Fork Transit Authority's Monarch Street bus routes. In addition, the
„„ project contains three on-site parking spaces despite the fact that none are required.
.~
With respect to the AACP's "Housing" section, all required affordable housing
w
., mitigation will be provided on-site by the Applicant. The proposed units comply with
.. all applicable APCHA requirements and exceed APCHA's minimum net livable area
°~ requirements. By integrating the affordable housing units with the project's free market
r residences, the proposed development reinforces and enhances a healthy social balance
in the community. Finally, the proposed development contributes to the AACP's goal
..
,.
...
31
-•• of promoting "Economic Sustainabiliry" by enabling an established, local business (i.e.,
°"' the Syzygy restaurant) to own the space it occupies, thereby relieving it of the upward
.u,
rent spiral.
'"' c) Affordable housing equal to thirty (30) percent of the
„^ additional free market floor area is provided in a manner acceptable to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Affordable Housing shall be approved
""' pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to
,~. Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation at a lower
`"' Category designation.
~, Affordable housing equal to forty-four percent of the project's free market
... residential floor area will be provided on-site which significantly exceeds the minimum
regulatory requirement. Two 1-bedroom units and one studio units are proposed which
will be credited by APCHA with housing 4.75 employees. The units also exceed the
.:
minimum net livable area requirements for Category 3 and 4 units. The units will be
,,,,, deed restricted to APCHA's Category 4 income and occupancy guidelines and rented to
qualified employees.
g) The project represents minimal additional demand on public
infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements
~+ proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited
,~ to, water supply sewage treatment energy and communication utilities, drainage
control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and
transit services.
w, All required public infrastructure is believed to be available or will
°~ otherwise be upgraded as may be required by the Applicant in connection with the
"' proposed development. Amore detailed discussion of the project's infrastructure
requirements is provided in Section IV.B. of this application.
=. 3. Affordable Housing. Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7., the
`" development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with APCHA guidelines
..
32
shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission subject to compliance with
the following criteria.
'°' a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to
accommodate the new units pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0., Development
Ceiling Levels.
~.,
There is presently no annual limit on the number of affordable housing
..
units which may be approved. A sufficient number of allotments, therefore, are
available. In addition, the approval of the proposed units is not expected to exceed the
~..
,,,,, City's current affordable housing development ceiling.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
r
„, Compliance with this review criteria is also required in connection with
"' the receipt of the proposed development's free market residential allotment and is
addressed in Section IV.A.2.b. of this application.
c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the
~ Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
'~ The proposed affordable housing units have been designed to comply with
a
.. all applicable APCHA requirements.
r d) Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in
s~ the form of actual newly built units or buy down units. Off-site units shall be
provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be
"r accepted as mitigation by the City Council pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2.
'~ Provision of affordable housing through acash-in-lieu payment shall be at the
discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be
provided through a mix of these methods.
The proposed development's affordable housing mitigation requirement
,,,, will be met on-site via the construction of new deed restricted units.
33
».
W
~.
r
?~ e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as "for sale" units
rr and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines. In the alternative, rental units may be provided if
~"" a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent
~+ affordability of the units.
As discussed previously, a nominal ownership interest (i.e., an undivided
1110 of 1 percent) in the proposed development's three affordable housing units will be
conveyed to APCHA to address this issue. The ownership interest will specifically
~ permit APCHA to enforce the required deed restriction. This approach has previously
^
been accepted by the City Attorney in connection with the City's approval of similar
rental affordable housing units
B. Subdivision
Pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Regulations, land which is to be
used for condominiums, apartments or any other multiple dwelling units is by defuution
a subdivision. As both multiple dwelling units and condominiumization are proposed by
the Applicant, subdivision review pursuant to Section 26.480.040.0. is required. The
various review criteria, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are
summarized below.
1. General Requirements. Pursuant to Section 26.480.OSO.A., the
proposed development must comply with the following general requirements.
a) The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Compliance with this review criteria is also required in connection with
the receipt of the proposed development's free market residential allotment and is
addressed in Section IV.A.2.b. of this application.
34
~„
'mM
w
,..
..
~..
,.
,a,
..
.,
..
~.
...
..
~.
c) Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks
No sidewalk, curb and gutter is required to accommodate the proposed
development.
d) Paved Alleys
The alley at the rear of the project site is presently paved. Any existing
alley pavement, however, which is adversely impacted as a result of the proposed
development will be repaired.
e) Traffic Control Signs, Signals or Devices
No traffic control signs or signals are required as a result of the proposed
development.
f) Street Lights
No street lights are required as a result of the proposed development.
g) Street Name Signs
Street names and associated signs are not required as a result of the
proposed development.
h- Street Trees or Landscaping
No additional street trees are believed to be required.
i1 Water Lines and Fire Hydrants
Water service will be provided from the existing six inch main located in
Hopkins Avenue. The service connection will be sized to accommodate the project's
combined domestic and fire flow requirements. The commercial area and the free
37
,..
market and affordable housing units, however, will be individually metered for billing
:,~
..,„ purposes. As discussed in Schmueser Gordon Meyer's engineering letter, sufficient
'" water capacity is available to serve the proposed development without additional upgrades
~~" to the City's treatment or delivery facilities.
„w
jl Sanitary Sewer Lines
Sewer service will be provided from the existing eight inch sanitary sewer
.. located in the alley at the rear of the project site. The existing tap which serves the Ia
e Cocina building will be abandoned and a new service line to the sewer will be installed.
As discussed in Schmueser Gordon Met'er's engineering letter, the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District ("ACSD")does not anticipate any major downstream constraints at this
„~ time, and has not indicated the need for any major improvements to the alley sewer.
.- Sufficient collection and treatment capacity is believed to be available from the ACSD
a to serve the project.
r
„~ k) Storm Drainage Improvements and Storm Sewers
..
The proposed development's storm water drainage system will be designed
,.
,,, to maintain historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and groundwater
recharge. As presently envisioned, an on-site drywell(s) will be utilized to intercept and
"' detain runoff from building roofs and impervious areas, and to control the rate of
.~ groundwater recharge. A detailed stormwater drainage plan will be submitted for review
and approval by the City's Engineering Department with the building permit application
,,, for the project.
q Bridges or Culverts
No bridges or culverts are required.
,..
r, 38
~.
,... m) Electrical Lines
.r Electrical service is presently available in the alley and will be extended
.~
„, to serve the proposed development. The existing transformer will be upgraded and a
r new utility easement will be conveyed to the City in the event required.
.,.
r n) Telephone Lines
Telephone service is presently available in the alley, and will be extended
as may be required to serve the proposed development.
o- Natural Gas Lines
,..
W Natural gas service is presently available in the alley, and will be extended
as may be required to serve the proposed development.
..
~* p) Cable Television Lines
..
Cable TV service is presently available in the alley, and will be extended
.,,, as may be required to serve the proposed development. Sufficient area is available
^- within the new building's trash and utility service area to accommodate the relocation of
"~ the existing cable TV pedestal in the event required.
~. 4. Affordable Housing. As discussed previously, the proposed
°"' development will contain two 1-bedroom and one studio affordable housing units which
will comply with all applicable APCHA requirements. The units exceed the minimum
w mitigation requirement imposed by the City residential GMQS regulations.
w
"' 5. School Land Dedication. The proposed development must comply
with the school land dedication requirements of Chapter 26.630 of the Regulations.
,~ Pursuant to Section 26.630.030.B., an applicant may make acash-in-lieu payment to the
~.
39
..
Aspen School District to satisfy the school land dedication requirements. As provided
"' for in Section 26.630.040.B., the Applicant will make the required payment in lieu of
..w
a land dedication prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.
~" C. Condominiumization
,..
~,,, Condominiumization approval will be required to sell the proposed
development's two free market dwelling units. The three affordable housing units which
"` are required to mitigate the project's two free mazket residential units will also have to
be condominiumized to permit their conveyance to the project's condominium
~~
w
association. Pursuant to Section 26.480.090.A. of the Regulations, a condominium plat
must be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval
.. as a subdivision. As a condominium plat cannot be prepared until construction is
"" substantially complete, this section of the Regulations arguably requires the submission,
review and approval of an additional subdivision application at such time as condominiu-
mization approval is requested.
All relevant subdivision review standards are addressed in Section IV.B.
of this application. Assuming that subdivision approval is granted by the City Council
for the proposed development, no significant benefit would appear to be gained by
requiring the Applicant to repeat the subdivision review process in order to condominiu-
" mite the project. Consequently, the Applicant requests that further subdivision review
with respect to Condominiumization be waived in connection with the approval of this
~. application. A condominium plat meeting the requirements of Section 26.480.090.B.,
w
^ however, will be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and
approval upon substantial completion of construction and prior to issuance of a Certificate
'^ of Occupancy for the project.
r
r
40
The proposed development will be condominiumized in accordance with
the provisions of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act as set forth in Articles
M„ 33 and 33.2, Title 38, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, respectively. The project's
... condominium plat will depict the commercial space, the free market residential units, the
"" affordable housing units, and the limited and common elements appurtenant thereto. A
°°~"" condominium declaration for the project and the articles of incorporation and bylaws for
..
the condominium association will be prepazed and recorded concurrently with the
„.,
condominium plat.
~.
D. Vested Property Rights
'"' In order to preserve the land use approvals which may be obtained as a
M
result of this application, the Applicant hereby requests vested property rights status
pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.308.O10.A. of the Regulations. It is our
..
understanding that the receipt of all required development approvals from the City
w. Council and the issuance of a Development Order by the Community Development
"' Department is sufficient to confer a vested property right, and that no further actions on
behalf of the Applicant are required.
..
41
.~
~.
,.
..
..
m
rYI
W
1~
i
r
..
~.
~.
W
APPENDIX A
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
EXHIBIT
l
PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 DATE: 10/16/06
PROJECT: LaCo Redevelopment
APPLICANT: JW Ventures, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann
` TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision, Growth Management Reviews for Free-Market Residential Units within a
Mixed-Use Project and Affordable Housing. Growth Management exemption for
Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial or lodge development.
DESCRIPTION: The prospective Applicant would like to redevelop the LaCo building located on Lots M and
N, Block 80, Aspen townsite and also known as 308 W. Hopkins Avenue into a new mixed-
- use building consisting of commercial space, free-market residential units, and affordable
housing.
Subdivision review is required for the development of multi-family residential units in a
mixed-use building. Growth management review is also necessary to obtain the growth
management allocations for the development of any new free-mazket units and new
_ affordable housing units constructed within the building. This property is located in an
historic district and has received Conceptual Development Plan Review approval. As part of
that development application, the Historic Preservation Commission is the reviewing body
for the Commercial Design Review inclusive of the Pedestrian Amenity Space and the
Mountain View Plane Review.
Since this application was submitted on June, 2006, for conceptual review and approval the
application is subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the time and is exempt from the
growth management requirements approved via Ordinance No.12, Series 2006. This is
further expounded upon in the code interpretation on Section 26.470.030(D), Annual
Allotment.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
28.470.040 A. 7. Remodeling or Replacement of Existing Commercial or Lodge Development
26.470.040 C.6. Free-Market Residential Units within aMixed-Use Project
28.470.040 C.7. Affordable Housing
26.480 Subdivision
26.515 Off-Street Parking
26.710.140 Commercial Core
Review by: -Staff for complete application
- Referzal agencies for technical considerations
-Planning and Zoning Commission for Growth Management Reviews of Free-Mazket
Residential Units within aMixed-Use Project, Affordable Housing (final decision
making body) and subdivision (Commission recommendation to City Council).
-City Council for Subdivision Review (final decision making body).
Public Hearing: Yes at P & Z review and at Council for 2nd Reading of Ordinance
Planning Fees: $2,700.00 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $225 per
hour)
Referral Fees: Engineering ($376), Parks ($376), Housing ($376)
Total Deposit: $3,828.00
Total Number of Application Copies:
Subdivision and associated reviews: 20 Copies
II~~~~~IIIII~~~UtlI1lIH~~lllll~ 526959 3.
JNNICE K VOS eR1AILL PITKIN COUNry CO 07~Za~2006 11:191
R 16.00 D 0.00
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),
VIEWPLANE REVIEW, PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE, DEMOLITION AND
COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 308 EAST
•, HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M, AND N, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
,„, RESOLUTION NO. 18, SERIES OF 2006
•~ PARCEL ID: 2737-073-29-007.
WHEREAS, the applicant, JW Venture LLC, represented by Sunny Vann and Chazles Cunniffe
.. Architects has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Commercial Design
Review for the property located at 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and
`" Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
"~ shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
W to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
~-. conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
"~ may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
~-. additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for View Plane Exempfion the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis
.- report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with
- Municipal Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
,. necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
"' WHEREAS, in order to authorize a demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of
,,,,, designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the
following criteria:
- a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
W safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
.,, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
., Aspen, or
y EXHIBIT
'f
I illy III inlll IIII I VIII Illin III III IIII INI 5 9 695ea9 11.19
lONICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 D 8.00
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
azchitectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for apmroval to demolish, a!1 of the followime criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the pazcel or historic
^^~ district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity ofthe historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship
-- to adjacent designated properties and
., c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the azea; and
~, WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.412 of
°° the Municipal Code, that the project conforms with the following criteria:
~~ I. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-appealing pattern
~' of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
~- purpose of the particular .standazd. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
the Standazds. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not
required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standazds.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
..,. proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standazds, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the facade of the
building may be required to comply with this section.
'" 3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a
,.. Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan
approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This
'"' criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the
,,,,, Historic Preservation Commission; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated July 12, 2006, performed an analysis of the
r application based on the standazds, found that the review standazds and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and
,Y, WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 12, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standazds and
'^ "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote
of 4 to 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), View Plane
~- Review, Pedestrian Amenity Space, Demolition, and Commercial Design Review for the
~.
...
property located a[ 308 East Hopkins Avenue, Lot M & N, Block 80, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions;
• 1. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
••• Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
.a discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
~.
y APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of July 2006.
-• Approv . to Form:
„.
-• David Hoefer, Assistant C Attorney
"~ Approved as to content:
TORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey alf ,Chair
~. ATTEST:
Kathy Strilkland, Chief Deputy Clerk
... I IIII~ 1~1 IIIW I~ I~ INR IIIIII ~ ~NI ~~ II~ 5 9 69zee9s i I : I9i
JgNICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 D 0.00
rr
~..
vv 1, I L [UUU IU: J[niYl
u n,
~~
Owner's
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
A Stock Company
IVU. tl4Yy Y
EX/H~IJBIT
_ T
Policy Number 1312- 588596
OWIVEZ2'S POLTCX OFTiTLE INSURANCE
-" SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
.,. CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, FIDELITY NATIONAL
TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a.California corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date
aw of Podicy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in
Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of.•
~.- 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other then as stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title;
w- 3. Unmarketabiliry of the title;
.. 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land
'~ The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as
... insured but only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations.
., IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FIDELITY NATIONAL T1TZE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy
T to be signed and sealed by its duly authorised officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A.
•4
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
'' F:tldu corny rtle, Tor, ~ /~
r 601 E Hoplom Awe. Std Floor ~ nv ~ is ~~~/ I~.~ I I,~~~~.'
„- Aspen, (:olorado 81811 ~~ $ l:;A L~a
e, 970.925-]766/970.9P5~5P7 Fu E _ ,~,~,ii,
-- 87?-2173158 Toll Flee ~~• ~ .,~ .~ ~ - ,
wvi:.. .
LountCrs:fined:.-'-.~._~_!,..,_ ~_~~ ..
,_ P>,utborized Si~nazurc -
(Pkarr prim name nr.!oa~ ' ° °'
=o~?,c::•:-Received Time Oct. 11. 4:29PM
U/IICJ ~IVCLCYI6~ UHRUCIVJ8N61L
~~
P..".4 (:e~pC > fonts (1G' i•S_~
OCT. 11. 2006 10:33AM OATES KNEZEVICH GARDENSWARTZ N0. 8499 P 5
_. SCIiEDULE A-OWN'ER'S POLICY +
"" CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER
PCT1 B935F9 September 30, 2005 @ 3:23 PM $4,000,000.00 1312-588596
,.. 1. NAME OF INSURED:
m^ JW VENTURES, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
.. 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS:
,., IN FEE SIMPLE
~- 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN:
JW VENTURES, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
,,, 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ,STATE OF
COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
m. LOTS M AND N,
°°~ BLOCK 80,
CITY AND TOW NSITE OF ASPEN.
r
'~ P)TKIN COUNTY TIT'1.E, INC.
601E.HOPKINSAVE.
°^ ASPEN, COLORADO 57617
(970) 925-7766/(970)-975b527 FAX
r
THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WI1H THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEE',
r,~
Received Time Oct. 11. 4:29PM
OCT. 11. 2006 10:33AM GATES KNEZEVICH GARDENSWARTZ
SCHEDULE B-0WNERS
N0. 8499 P. 6
,,~ CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER
~. PCT18935F9 September 30, 2005@ 3:23 PM 1312-588596
THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE'BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING:
., 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
o, 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct
survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
,,., 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or matedal heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public records,
^"' 5. Water rights, claims or title to wate-.
,,, 6. Taxes for the year 2005 not yet due or payable.
,., 7. The premises hereby conveyed may be entered by the proprietor of any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in
place, bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits, for the purpose of extracting and
... removing the ore from such vein or lode, shoukf the same, or any part thereof, be found to penetrate, intersect,
pass through, or dip into the mining ground or premises, as reserved in United States Patent recorded February
"° ~ 8, 1888 in Book 59 at Page 349.
""' 8. The premises hereby conveyed may be entered by the proprietor of any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in
„„, place, bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits, for the purpose of extracting and
removing the ore from such vein or lode, should the same, or any part thereof, be found to penetrate, intersect,
pass through, or dip into the mining ground or premises, as reserved in United States Patent recorded November
28, 1898 in Book 59 at Page 518.
9. Terms, condkions, provisions and obligations asset forth in Mukipurpose Easement Agreement recorded
September 16, 1976 in Book 316 at Page 705.
10. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations asset forth in License Agreement recorded November 26, 1991 in
,,, Book 662 at Page 968.
11. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen Histodc
Preservation Commission recorded March 26, 2001 as Reception No. 452717 as Resolution No. 6.
12. Deed of Trust from : JW VENTURES, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
"" To the public Trustee of the County of PITKIN
For the use of :ALPINE BANK
"~ Original Amount : $3,000,000.00
„~ Dated :September 30, 2005
Recorded :September 30, 2005
«., Reception No. :515513 and Re-recorded December 5, 2005 as Reception No. 516061.
y (Continued)
,~, Received Time Oct.ll. 4:29PM
- _- -
OCT, 11. 2D06 10:33AM GATES KNEZEVICH GARDENSWARTZ N0. 8499 P. 7
POLICY NO. 1312-588596
CASE NO. PCT18935F9
SCHEDULE B-OWNERS -EXCEPTIONS--CONTINUED-
.~
w. EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED 1, 2, 3 AND 4 ARE HEREBY OMITTED.
W
Y
V
i
4,/
W
e~
W
,,,,, Received Time Oct. il. 4:29PM
EXHIBIT
9
.~.
e.
r
..
~..
,..
y..
October 20, 2006
Ms. Jennifer Phelan
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Deaz Ms. Phelan:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC,
Planning Consultants, to represent us in the processing of our application for the
redevelopment of the former La Cocina restaurant property. Mr. Vann is hereby autho-
rized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the afore-
mentioned application.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
JW VENTURES,~LLC
.~IF7 /
]ohn Frovine
P.O. Box 8769
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-6553
c:\oldc\bus\ciry.llrUtr49705.jp1
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
Name: ~1+~~~~jG.~j GGG
Location: ~a ~. /'`'/•~ ~~~ , ~ /~~ ~ /~~Y'i• 8~
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, le a descri lion where a ro riate)
ParcellD # (REQUIRED)
REPRESENTATIVE: d~~-
Name: Y~/y~~~~~~~.
Address: /Z~~2~~..~?°/r//~/~~ ~1iL~
Phone #: 9 ~5"c~s 8
-~ PROJECT:
Name: G'~f ~~sC~~ f /~~/~X'~.~~/t-~~T
Address: l~~-~
w, Phone #: ~zs ' G s~
TYPE of APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Y
^ Conditional Use
^ Special Review
^ Design Review Appeal
GMQS Allotment
GMQS Exemption
^ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream
Mazgin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
Mountain View Plane
^ Lot Split
n Lot Line Adjustment
^ Conceptual PUD
^ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
^ Conceptual SPA
^ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
ubdivision
ubdivision Exemption (includes
condominiumi7ation)
^ Conceptual Historic Devt.
^ Final Historic Development
^ Minor Historic Dev[.
^ Historic Demolition
^ Historic Designation
^ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
^ Temporary Use
^ TexUMap Amendment
^ Other:
PROPOSAL: (descri ion of ro sed buildin s, uses, modifications, etc.)
~„ Har~ou attached tLe following? FEES DUE: $ ~~S
1Q' r_e-Application Conference Summary
ttachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement
~esponse to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standazds
..
EXHIBIT
8 7
ATTACHMENT3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
»• Project: G~fGlJ~/.~/.ef /~~/EGCYr~'-~{r
.. Applicant: _/~.~/ ~~ GGG
Location: ~ /'°i!'/.t/Y~ ~,
Zone District: GG' GGY~j/-/c~C/~G CY~" t~
~.. Lot Size: ~'~ Q ~2
Lot Area: G, d 3Z
-, (for a purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
.~, within the high water mark, easements, and steep s lopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
... Commercial net leasable: Existing: 27~~~Proposed: ~7~s
Number of residential units: Existing: = Proposed: ~ S
"' Number of bedrooms: Existing: -- Proposed.• 7
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):
«~- DIMENSIONS: ~~ ~/~""G'~~s~-~~
Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
,. Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
.~. Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
_, On-Site parking: Existing: Required.' Proposed:
Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed:
,,, % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: Required. Proposed:
._ Rear Setback: Existing: Required. Proposed.•
Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required. Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required:
~. Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: Required.•
,.. Proposed:
Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed.•
~"' Buildings
..
•' Existing non-conformities or encroachments:
Variations requested:
~.
..
EXHIBIT
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AQreemept for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and
... (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
"' 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
,y (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
_„, 2. APPLICANT understands and agees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of
2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
-- condition precedent to a determination of application completeness.
"' 3. APPLICANT and CITY agee that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the
~, application. APPLICANT and CITY further agee that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT
_., make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on
a monthly basis. APPLICANT agees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or
-- approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining Beater cash liquidity and will make
additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessazy as costs aze incurred. CITY
agees it will be benefited through the Beater certainty of recovering its full costs to process
APPLICANT'S application.
__, 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the
~.. Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required fmdings for project consideration,
unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial
deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Community Development staff
time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly
billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including
post approval review at a rate of $220.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments
shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agees that failure to pay such
accrued costs shall be Bounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued
until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN
..
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc
11/30/04
APPLICANT
Date:
Billing Address and Telephone Number:
Reauire~`y~~~WK GGL
f°cS, lJ°?< ~9
,~~ Ga b~lGl2
925-~ s-s~
,..
' AN3AV-09.008-1 uo4~n~~!.P
', woo7GanennrmM all!! el ~i~~
1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC
•- 215 S MONARCH SUITE 104
ASPEN, CO 81611
'„„ AEP FAMILY LLL 3.9389931°~
C/O ANDREW V HECH7 GARFIELD 8
',P, HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
,,,, ASPEN, CO 81611
BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M
""' PO BOX 1365
ASPEN, CO 81612
CENTRE OF ASPEN LLC 54.6248989%
PO BOX 1247
"" ASPEN, CO 81612
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
205 S GALENA ST
ASPEN,CO 81611
DAVIDSON DONALD W
864 CEMETERY LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
DOLE MARGARET M
C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
CEDARIDGE
'~ PO BOX 8455
ASPEN, CO 81612
...
^^ FREDRICK LARRY D
ROBERTS JANET A
'~ 215 S MONARCH ST #G101
ASPEN, CO 81611
«."
GOLDEN ARTS CONNECTION LLC
'"' ASPEN INTERNATIONAL ART DBA
213 S MILL ST
"' ASPEN, CO 81611
GRAND FINALE LTD
,,., PO BOX 32
ASPEN, CO 81612
EXHIBIT
~uawafuey~ ap i
303 EAST MAIN LLLP ' 316 EAST HOPKINS LP
PO BOX 8016 RYANCO INC
ASPEN, CO 81612 1220 N STADEM DR
TEMPE, AZ 85281-1857
ALPINE PETROLEUM LLC BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER
435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 10370
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
BRINING ROBERT D CC ASPEN LLC
215 S MONARCH #203 75-5706• HANAMA PL #104
ASPEN, CO 81611 KAILUA-KONA, HI 96740
CITY OF ASPEN CLARK FAMILY TRUST
130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 362
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION DAVID DOGWOOD LLC
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 32 PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED DENSON JAMES D
215 S MONARCH #104 PO BOX 1614
ASPEN,CO 81611 TUBAC,AZ 85646
FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC FORGE PARTNERSHIP
240 S MILL ST STE 201 PO BOX 2914
ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621
GALENA PLAZA LLC 30.3845777% GILBERT LEANE 2.7624071%
CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESO CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESQ
601 E HYMAN AVE 601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLDSTEIN PETER & ALAN GOODING RICHARD L
150 METRO PK #2 4800 S HOLLY ST
ROCHESTER, NY 14623 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC GRANITE TRUST LLC 61.668%
C!O CARL B LINNECKE CPA PC C/O KATIE REED MANAGEMENT
215 S MONARCH ST #101 2106 S MONARCH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
Aa3AV-o9-0os-L uo!1~MSUl.P wawaWeip ap sues ®0915 ®Aa3Atl l!we~le6 a! zasll!in
unn ~4ane ~wxM allloal el ~In~ ~ +al~ @ saN~e; sa;iaobq~
HALL CHARLES L ', HANSEN STEVE 11.8169824% HART GEORGE DAVID & SARAH C
-O BOX 1819 CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESQ PO BOX 5491
SPEN, CO 81612 601 E HYMAN AVE SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
ASPEN, CO 81611
i=i1GH DESERT NEWSPAPERS INC
500 DOUBLE EAGLE CT
ENO, NV 89521
HILLIS OF SNOWMASS INC
170 E GORE CRK
VAIL, CO 81657
HOFFMAN JOHN & SHARON
210 W 5TH ST APT 211
KANSAS CITY, MO 64105-1166
JTEL JEROME INC
w~0 EVEREST CHRISTY G
9000 N BROADWAY
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73114
I~«iTIE REED INVESTORS LLC
I ~RTNERS IN KATIE REED LLC
PM'0 B S MONARCH
ASPEN, CO 81611
KREVOY SUSANNE SEPARATE PROP
'""'ST
11 LA MESA DR
S7CNTA MONICA, CA 90402
NlRL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLC
C/O M 8 W PROPERTIES
2 i S MILL ST STE 301A
P 'EN, CO 81611
M...1 PROPERTIES LLC 50%
302 E HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO 81611
O~21EN MAUREEN
2~s S MONARCH ST G102
ASPEN, CO 81611
JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K
51 OVERLOOK DR
ASPEN, CO 81611-1008
KATIE REED INVESTORS LLC 33.332%
C!O GARFIELD & HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
MAIN 8 MILL LLC
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
MONARCH BUILDING LLC
PO BOX 126
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
MTN ENTERPRISES 80B
C/0 HILLIS OF SNOWMASS
170 GARE CRK DR
VAIL, CO 81657
ORR ROBERT L
500 PATTERSON RD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY
TRUST #1
216 SEVENTEENTH ST
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
KELLY GARY
PO BOX 12356
ASPEN, CO 81612
MEEKER RICHARD J AND ALLISON D
0752 MEADOWOOD DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
MOTHER LODE INVESTORS LLC
620 E HYMAN AVE #1E
ASPEN, CO 81611
OBRIEN MAUREEN
1370 MAIN ST
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
OSA TRUST 50%
C!O KREVOY SUSANNE BELZBERG
2311 LA MESA DR
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
~A4K CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC
?' S MONARCH ST STE 203
a`JrEN, CO 81611
PARTNERS IN KATIE REED LLC 5%
C/0 GARFIELD & HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
PETERSON BROOKE A 50%
302 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
°ITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS TWO LLC RACZAK JOSEPH S 8 JANET L
:/QLOWELL MEYER
'( 3OX 1247 0234 LIGHT HILL RD
\.`,.,EN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS, CO 81654
SEGUIN WILLIAM L
PO BOX 4274
ASPEN, CO 81612
., Tam;eailaad~se3~o; ~adedpaaiT ®091531tl1dW31~(+anyasD
°! ®09LS®A213AVa ~ ! iaaus uolPngw! ~s ~ ® SIa9e'! Ind ~3
.lL3Atl-O9-008-L ~o!AMS~!,P
• wortianemmm alllnaL e! za~nsuo~
oMITH ASPEN QEAA LLC
C/O LOW ELL MEYER
°O BOX 1247
\SPEN, CO 81612
-HE ISIS BUILDING LLC
~~"~05 S MILL ST # 301A
ASPEN, CO 81611
'`4ARREN DOGWOOD LLC
JO LOWELL MEYER
TO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
~ILLIAMS DEXTER M
W LUPINE DR
,..SPEN, CO 81611
~.
W
aW
aY
~ ®09L5®~~~/~
ta~n3eaJ load ~tse3 ~o;
i laay5 uclpngsul ~S ~
_.
3uawaWey~ ap sua9 ®09L5 ®AN3Atl 3uege6 al zaspl~
~ salad @ saLoe; sauanbp~
SSM LAND AQUISITION CO LLC
2121 KIRBY DR #99
HOUSTON, TX 77019
TRUE JAMES R
215 S MONARCH #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
WELLS FARGO BANK
C/O DELOITTE TAX LLP
PO BOX 2609
CARLSBAD,CA 92018
WITEK ROBERT J
215 S MONARCH #G-103
ASPEN, CO 81611
THALBERG KATHARINE
221 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
VAIL FINE ART GALLERY INC
PO BOX 1953
EDWARDS, CO 81632
WENDELIN ASSOC
150 METRO PARK
ROCHESTER, NY 14623
jade T ® ®09L5 31V1dW31 ~ILany ash
d Paa~ i
~ i slage'I load ~e3
APPENDIX B
W WS[p(f T'1 ~ YESPS[NL6 %]Ill ~ [Y•m %'GMYi 1.OMIIII[ ~ N] ]]5 "N 1YXJ ]XY IUI
LSSI-OL60L6 YYf • 0655-Si60L6 ~i131 • lUli w'NiISV • "NY If•YIAH 15Y] M9
wo~•a~puunrmmm
S1731/H~2/b' 3ddINN(]~ S37?1t~H~
I
H
CD
S
X
W
.wnw]
- ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I ~
I
~
~
~
~
I
~
L ~- -_-
OOV21010~'N3dSV
3nN3/1H SNDIdOH 1Sb'3 SO£
~~ o ~
~ ~ g x ~
~ ~ ~ w
Ln
Z
~
o
'^
a
~
m
Q
8
~
U
~ 9 ~ 8 € 5 ~ ~ e
Z
WAFLf10f61Y1. I6WLf10(S ~)Bl. [Tp WtVLS LWAM'ilf. M31S "UI YOM~YM bbl
[SSF0260L6 AVf • ~65SSZ60[63w . U91Y OJ'Ni15V 11Y MY1411M Ol9
woo•a~iuuna•mn+n~
S1~311H~?IH 3jdlNN(]~ S37?Ib'H~
OOd210107 •N3dSY
LJ
a
o~o
o
3l1N3i1b' SNDIdOH 1Sb'3 SO£
~~
____
_____~_
B
3 6 jj ~N/ ~
g /\
~ ~ _ ~ w ~
~~ ~
M
U
f
g,l.
tlW'L(Wf6 )VI. OiW'S{10ff :3A1. lMW W'C18LL 1VaBM'iL[. IO[31f "OY NDC1 M1 W64
L55y02611L6:ItVf . 06595)60L6:illl . LL91Y (p'N3dSV . 'L1V MYUH lA'1 b9
wo~•a~uunr,wwe
SJJ311H~?!b' 3jjINN/7~ S3RIHH~
OOVNOIOJ 'N3dSd
3l1N3i1H SNDIdOH 1Sb'3 80£
has N ~
~ ~ X ~
~W 4 4 W
d~ ~ s ~
Lo
0
r
Q
z
w
z
^~ IOAS[10162If • 06WSlM(6.Tll 6Mw 00.'PJMM 1MMYflt. mt NV NNV.W 1S'l Ol9
LSSMt60t6?Yf Rig-St60G
wo~~a)yuuno•mw.+
~~ 51~311H~21b' 3131NNl1~ 537211~H~
I
OQdilOl07 ~N3dSV
3(1N3/1b' SND1dOH 1Sb'3 SO£
~g ~
~ a s ~ 'I
~ x ~
4
`s ~ ~ ~. ~ LLJ ~d
~.
~ MEYER
SCHMUESER ~ GORDON G~ENwooo sPRINGS nsPEN
~
' ~ I l a .w-_6TIi,..9U1'IE. Zoo P-O._ Sox. 2 1 55..
E N~ G I N E E R$ ~$ U R V E Y O. R$ GLENWOOD SPPINGS. CO 91601 nsPEN. GO 6161 2
!...- _-.._. _ 9T0-945-t004 _ - -. 910-926-6722
'. I P%: 910-945-5948 EX: 9~0-925-4157
`
~.a-- -- October.23, 2006.
~ .Dear Sunny:
lam writing in follow-up to our discussions regarding the proposed redevelopment of the
La Cocina restaurant property at 308 East Hopkins Avenue in Aspen. This letter report
is to provide general comment regarding infrastructure availability for the redevelopment
of the site.
Introduction
The La Cocina Restaurant is an existing commercial building located on Lots M and N of
Block 80 in the CC, Commercial Core, Zone District of the Original City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado. The existing property comprises about 6,032 square feet. The
proposed development includes a basement level with storage and tenant space, a main
level restaurant, and two additional levels with three employee housing and two free
market residential units. This letter report is intended to address the basic infrastructure
_ availability to construct the project on the property.
Water Suaaly
Based on a brief conversation with City of Aspen C'ublic Works Director Phil Overeynder
regarding the project, water supply is available from an existing 6-inch cast iron water
main in Hopkins Avenue adjacent to the parcel. I would anticipate that the existing
~ service is probably quite old and, undoubtedly, undersized to meet the fire flow
requirements of a new commercial and multi-family structure on the site. I would
anticipate that the existing service will need to be abandoned at the main and a new,
h
e
larger service installed from the main into the building to provide adequate flow for t
fire and domestic service requirements of the proposed building. I would also surmise
that the existing La Cocina is probably old enough that it did not pay significant, if any,
~j tap fees for the existing service and that tap and connection fees will be required for the
entire program of the proposed structure. System treatment and delivery capacity
should be available for the proposed redevelopment project.
1:120061200636TCorrespondencelLa Cocina Eng Rpt- 102306.doc
EXHIBIT
_ i:ri l; r_rrP[inn ~ __
c,:o;
,,,o i, s:,.,..
s~xZ~.G ~:r~:7C`
MULTII'URPOSL' EASEi1~FT A6REE:•L`'NT
ELECTRIC AidD COt~L'SUHICi'TIO.7 UTILITIES ~1
J ~;aY of
THIS AGREFdd.°NTr ~-"•ade and enured into this z~ -
1976, ,ctween LA COCINA, 1NC., a Colorado Corpora-
+. h Pr
lion (hereinafter referred to ws "Grantor"), and TfiE CITY OF ]SSPI:N,
<,3 "City")r
COLOit~DO, a Municipal Corporation fherei.nafter referred to
ASOtTr?TAIA ST?TES TES.EPFIONE A2Rl TELEGRAPII COMPANY: a Colorado Corpora-
tion (hereinafter referred to as "Company"), and FSICRO CAEL1; CO:SMUN IC%~-
TIONS, INC „ together referred to as "Grantees", wherein it is stinulrrt-.
and a4re'~` ~s follows:
. g p C I T A L.
1• 9'he Grantor is the owner of the following described real.
estate in the City of Anpen, County of Pitkin, t;tate of Colorado:
lock. 60, Griginal ~
Lots M and N,
Aspen a^ownsite.
':he City is pursuing a program to place all overhead
electric and corurunications vtility.lines underground- ..
•co accomplish this-underground utility prograr" a
m?n;mal number of locations are required for t'_ie nn ^tltAra ao~urte antes
grouaC. of transformersr switchboxes, ?euestals an..
Which will not be buried. for the
q• Grantees Wish to acquire easements irimediately
~rcund facilities necessazy to accomplish the undergrovnding. ~
above-, to be
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefit it is ~
derived Hereby, an3 c±her good ar,d valuable consideration,
agreed by the parties as follows:.
r..gERln_~F'_
r-raptor does hereby gYgnt and convey to the Grantees -
y- rOm time to time, exc. vatrng
a ~rpetual easement for the pur~,ose of,
for, constructing, installing, maintainingr inspecting, repairing,
replacing, operating and removing electric transformers and switch
cabinets, ;:eiephone pedestals, terminal. bo=_es and similar elect"oU..
a urtonancm " uponr t'°^rr under any `z
,_;1it~ PP~ .g
..
i
, ".
,s
,.:
..rt
•.`+
r
N/
~3~ n~: r~
descri• land which the Gzantor owns, or in which
the following
the Grantor has any i-merest to wit:
The northerly 5.5 feet of the westerly
B.0 feet of Lot M, 31ock BO,. Original
Aspen Townsite, including the airspace
l0feet above the grade of the said
northerly5.i feet of the westerly B•0
feet of Lot M,
situate in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
TOGETHEI7 HI'1'H the right to clear and to keep cleared all
trees and other obstructions as may be necessary to exercise the
rights of the Grantees herein• ecifically provided herein, all
y, Except as otherwise sp heirs,
of the provisions of this agreement shall be binding upon the
personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties
hereto and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns
of the Grantees.
Date: / ~I 4~ X970
STATE OF COLOP.ADO jss.:
CODNTY OF PITRIN ) acknowledged bcfer_ me
ine foregoing instrument was duly
NiGha~+~ ~~~y ~~~
1976, by ~---- ~
.this ~Tuay of ~C~----' d ann official
_ Grantor herein• Witness my J1
. ~-~-
.,
seal. ~'~,, ~ f ry Public
u Co,rmission expires• ~~ ~~
GRANTEES:
..... ~ .. '?`HE CITY OSi~SPII7, ~C.f7IARADO, a
-. u,,,,ieioal:C°rP°rii'/°n it /J_
Date:... ~r~
.,.,. ~5 .
~: .
ATTEST: ~ ~
Dat?
//V
(Title) I
_ ~
THE MOIIPITAIN STATES TELEPHONE T.ND
TELEGRAPH CO[4PA7GY
i
i
(!
t
i
,
f
~~
t~.
~y ~
~~~ ~~
1Y =[
1
°8G%Jj.U B:yE 1r ~ C
MICRO CABLE COMNONICATIONS, INC.
Date: '7-/5'76
k'
ADDENDUM TO FiULTIPURPOSE AGREHFIENT
i.,
ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICnTIOB UTILITIES
...
I
«.. i
air: ~6 I~:,ci 71k^~
TIIIS ADDEIDUM made and entered into this ,Z rf
,~ day of
"~u- n- e- __, 1976, :;etween THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a
Municipal Corporation (hereinafter refered to ss 'City") and
L.9 COCINA, INC „ aColorado Corporation (hereinafter referred to
as "~'rantor°) wherein it is stipulated and agreed as follows:
R E C I T A L S
1. The City and Grantor have entered into a "Multipurpose
Easement Agreement - Electric and Cwmnunications Utilities" or the
placement ofelectric and telephone and cable TV utilities on Lot M,
Block 80, Original Aspen Townsite. "
~~1
Z• The Ci*v enA r-__~___
g en to screen from public view any equipment installed by the Cit_v
or T+lountain States telephone and Telegraph Company.
- TE
r;` 'i
r. ' ~~'ATTESTa -
~~~,) ~~ r
,athryn,S.~,7au ter, City Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF PITRIN ;ss.:
the conditions of and consideration for such easement agreement.
G R E E M E N T
1T7EP,EFORE, it is further agreed, in consideration of the
mutual benefits to be derived, as follows; -
1. Fhe City will pay Grantor, as consideration for the
easement, the sum of Eleven Hvndred ($1,100.00) Dollars.
~. ?'he City, as additional consideration for the easement
givca, sgrecs that it shall ,. °t
^on., rust and assu.~e the coots of cc.^.struct-
ing a wooden fence on the south and east perimeters of the easement
iv
AcY..^.^t~ledge3 hc`ore me this -k ~ r~
~„ =97b, by AA9'Ijpy)7 E. HAUTER and STAGY STA:dDLEF;r 123 ~, the City Clerk anG
W. Mayor respectively, of the Cit_i u: Aspen; .Cbl orado~. ~--
_~
r i
r
,?
90GKv.~~.lt~7 ~~ --~
LA COCI:VA, IN0., a Colorado Corporation
"'~ STAT$ OF COIARApO )
COUNTY OF PITKIN ;ss.:
Acknowledged before me this ~!'
?L day o£ WNW
'=976. by _ t(J G .cf0
,i
3otary Pv he
,~€e.. _ ~ ...
.E,
~~
~-
[..,
i,..
i ~..~
r
r
r -
1
1
C
C
i
ei
eSE
AUID
tra
xil:
'the
dei• i
agre
#338923 !2S/?1 13e 11 Fiec 415. ~=~J Fk' G q6B
Silvia '~is, Pitkin Cn±y Clerk, Doc
LICENSE AC~fENP
~.
..
This License Agreement is made this ,'Lfj~ day of
19~, between La Covina Inc., a Colorado Corporation (hereinafter referred
to as "La Covina' or "Licensor') whose address is 308 East Bopkins Avenue, Aspen,
Colorado 81611, and the Duane Robert Johnson and Margaret Whitfield Johnson
Revocable Trust, dated June 15, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as 'Licensee")
~. whose address is 1116 East Cinnebar, Phoenix, Arizona 85020.
.~.
..
..
~.
...
...
r
r
..,
.~,
..
RECITALS
1. La Covina is the owner of the La Covina Restaurant Building and real
property in the City of Aspen legally described as follows:
Lots M S N
elodc 80
City and Townsite of Aspen
Canty of Pitkin, State of Colorado (sometimes
hereinafter referred to as the "property)
2. Licensee desires to continue to encroach upon a portion of the above
described property owned by Licensor for purposes of maintaining a structure
partially located on Int N, Block B0.
3. License- is willing to grant Licensee a license to maintain said
encroachment subject to the ter» and conditions as set forth below.
WITNESSETH
PAW 173EREFORE, IN CDNSIDERATICN OF the terms and conditions hereinafter
provided, the parties agree as follows:
1. QtANP OL' LICENSE. L3 Covina hereby grants to Licensee a revocable
license for the sole purpose of maintaining the existing structure, a portion
of which is located within Lot N, BLxk 80, Aspen, Colorado.
2. SUBORDINATION. lttis license is and shall be subject to and subordinate
to all present and future mortgages, &-eds of trust or other encumbrances
affecting the Property to the full extent of the principal sum or sums secured
or intended to be secured thereby, the interest upon said sum or sums, any other
charges or costs thereon and any modifications, assignments, consolidations,
renewals ur exten:;ions thereof now or hereafter made. Licensee shall promptly
_, at the request or r,icenu~r, execute, acknaaledge and deliver from time to time
..
q33. tl!26+41 13:11 Rec s15.D4 P6 969
Sii~Dwi=, "i tk:in Cnty C1erF:, D ~O
such additional instruments as^,ay be required in order to acca~plish this
subordination.
3. TEIi~1INATION. 'This ircense may be terminated br+ Licensor upon one
hundred eighty (160) days written notice to Licensee. In the event of such
termination, Licensee shall, at their expense, remove that portion of the
' structure from Lot N within said one hundred eighty (180) day period. this
license shall also terminate, without notice, in the event the improvement is
' destroyed, abandoned. or a new building is constructed or placed an Lot O, Block
~~~ B0, Aspen, Colorado. In the event of any abandonment or termination Licensor
~~ may demolish or otherwise remrn~e the same without being accamtable or liable
whatsoever to Licensee.
._.. 4. INDFlRJTt'Y. Licensee agrees and shall upon dematd, saver hold, keep
m, harmless, and indemnify La Cocina from and for any and all claims, judcynents,
r awards, payments, or liability, including attorneys fees incurred by Ia Cocrna,
m on account of any loss or damage to property or injuries or death to persons
~, occasioned wholly or in part or resulting fran any acts or omissions by Licensee
or Licensee's guests or invitees for any cause or reason whatsoever arising. out
..
,~ of the maintenance of the encroachment or any use of La Cocina's property.
5. NOt'ICES. In the event any party hereto requires or deSire+> to send
~. a notice pursuant to this Agreement or any attecy'.ant matters, it shall be deemed
~• sufficient for such notice to be served in person or by registered or certified
.-. mail, postage prepaid, to such party at the address set forth at the beginning
'~ of this Agreement or to such other address as may be designated for such
"" purposes.
'~ 7. MISCELt.4NFArJS. 'This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding
and agreement among the parties hereto with rESpect to the subject matter hereof
and there are no agreements, understandings, restrictions, representations or
., warranties amxr the parties other than those set forth herein. 'this Agreement
shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado. this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto their heirs,
~_ successors, personal representatives and assigns. This Agreement shall not be
~, altered, mudified, or otherwise charred except by a recorded instnnnent signed
Pv~
r.
#.:~389C3 it/<b 1'; '.i kec 815.00 RK 662 F6 97
Silvia Da•ais, ~tki.^. Cnty Clerk, Doc B. UO
„, by the parties hereto.
,,,,, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this License Agreement the day
..,,, and year first written above.
LICENSOR: L9 COCIEUI INC.
...
.,~ Nr as le , Pres dent
W
.,,~ LICENSEE: THE DuANE ROBERC JoHNSaN AND NARG4REf
wHITFIEID JOE)rH(Xd REVOC4BiE T121bT,
.. DATED JIRIE 15, 1989
,,,, BYv~JI.< ~ ~ ,t
RAarg~c~et Wnit ld Ju son, sol TYvstee
~. .SPATE OF COLORADO
,~, % ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
~•~ foregoing License Agreement was acknowledged before me on this
W ~~ day of ~'~J , 19 q ~ by Nicholas Lebby as President of
La Cocira, inc.
'° WTINESS mY hand and officia~Lll s~e~al~. 2,
'4 My commission expires: _Q~~~ /q'~~ -;.,G~,J ~.; 7~~
'" ari.
ery Pub is .. i -~ ~°~ ~.
,~ : G{.;
'~ - The'foregoi~3,License Agreement was acknowledged before me on this
~.'.Z day of -~jh`Qnn~%r 19'~L, -by Marga~~t Whitfield Johnson as
~^ sole trustee for the Duane RoMrt Johnson and Maz~garet Whitfield Johns
Revxable TYUSt, dated June 15, 1989.
..
..
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ~- ~- ~~
...
Notary Public
..
~.
..
~.
..
..
..
~.
r
..
~,
r
APPENDIX C
EXHIBIT
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
_~ J[JRISDICTION: City of Aspen
"' APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: Section 26.470.030(D),Annual
,,, Allotment
`~ EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2006
WRITTEN BY: James Lindt, Senior Planner
r
APPROVED BY: Chris Bendon,
Community Development Director
..,
•- COPIES TO: John Worcester, City Attorney
. SUMMARY
,,,, This land use code interpretation is being issued to clarify the number of growth
management allotments that aze available to development proposals that applied for land
"" use review before the adoption of Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2006, which reduced the
,,,„ amount of free-mazket residential allotments that are available from 37 to 18:
PURPOSE
..,. As discussed above, the purpose of this code interpretation is to clarify the number of
growth management allotments that are available to development proposals that applied
'"° for land use review before the adoption of Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2006, which
..- reduced the amount of free-market residential allotments that are available from 37 to 18.
BACKGROUND
-~ Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2006, was approved on March 28, 2006. Ordinance No. 12
approved a series of land use code amendments, one of which reduced the number of
annual growth management allotments available for the development of free-market
.. residential dwelling units within the City from 37 to 18. The Colorado Revised Statutes
contain a provision that gives an applicant for a land use request a reliance on the
regulations that aze in place at the time they initiate a development application.
..
Several land use applications ultimately requiring growth management allotments for
free-market residential dwelling units were submitted for review prior to the adoption of
® Ordinance No: 12. Some of these applications did not submit growth management
,,, requests but did initiate development applications for other land use actions prior to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 12. The adoption of Ordinance No. 12 raises several
"" questions related to how many free-mazket residential development allotments aze
available to development applications that were submitted prior to the adoption of said
ordinance. Staff has issued this interpretation to answer these questions.
DISCUSSION
"' As was mentioned briefly in the background section of this interpretation, the Colorado
..,. Revised Statutes contain a provision giving a developer a right to be processed and rely
on the regulations that are in place at the time a development application is submitted.
Therefore, the development projects that submitted a general land use application (e.g.
.. application for Historic Preservation Commission Review) prior to the adoption of
Ordinance No. 12 have a total of 37 free-mazket residential growth management
'" allotments available between them since the land use code allowed for 37 allotments
when these applications were submitted for land use review. The 18 allotments that aze
available to projects that submitted a general land use application after the adoption of
~" Ordinance No. 12 aze derived from the 37 free-market residential allotments that were
available prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 12.
Further complicating this interpretation is the fact that there is a provision in Land Use
°°° Code Section 26.470.060(B)(1), Application and Allocation Procedures: Application
_,, Submission, that establishes that projects aze put in order on a first come, first serve basis
for growth management allotments based on when they actually apply for a growth
"' management application rather than when They submit a general land use application.
That being the case, there aze three possible status categories of projects resulting from
the adoption of Ordinance No. 12. These categories, number of allotments available to
"" projects in each of these categories, and cuing status aze shown in the chart below:
...
.~
Status Projects that Projects that submitted Projects that did
Category submitted a general a general land use not submit a
land use application application before the general
and a growth adoption of Ordinance application until
management No. 12, but did not after the adoption
application before the submit a growth of Ordinance No.
adoption of Ordinance management 12.
No. 12. application until after
the adoption of
Ordinance No. 12.
Number of 37 Free-mazket The 37 Free-mazket 18 Free-mazket
Allotments Residential Growth Residential Growth Residential Growth
Competing Management Management Allotments Management
for: Allotments described in the column Allotments (6 of
to the left. which can be used
in the CC and C-1
Zone Districts .
Cuing status • Put in the cue for • Put in the cue for • Put in the cue
allotments before allotments after the -for allotments
projects in the two projects that applied in front of
(2) columns to the for growth ro~ects that
...
W
right because they .management submitted a
submitted a growth allotments prior to the growth
management adoption of management
application before Ordinance No. 12. application
projects in the two after they did.
columns to the right. . Put in the cue for
allotments in front of • Put in the cue
projects that for allotments
submitted a growth after projects
management that submitted
application after they for a gowth
did. management
applicarion
• Put in the cue for before they did.
allotments after
projects that
submitted for a
growth management
application before
they did.
'°' In summary, projects that submitted a general land use application, a growth management
,,,, application, or both aze competing for the 37 free-mazket residential allotments that were
in the land use code prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 12. Projects that submitted
"' general land use applications, but did not submit requests for growth management
,,,, allotments prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 12 aze competing for what is remaining
of the 37 allotments after the projects that submitted for growth management applications
'"' prior to Ordinance No. 12 are accounted for.
r. Since the number of allotments applied for prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 12 did
"' not exceed the difference between the 37 allotments that were available prior to the
,.. adoption of said ordinance and the 18 allotments that are available after the adoption of
said ordinance, the 18 residential allotments (6 of which can be used in the Commercial
"" Core and C-1 Zone Districts) that are. allowed after the ordinance. adoption were not
.r reduced by projects that submitted general land use applications before the Ordinance
No. 12.
26.316.030(A) APPEAL PROCEDURES
Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or detemunation shall initiate an
~' appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development
~- Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director
and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to
w file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver ;of any
rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination. _
H- ;
w.
r
EXHIBIT
~ 2
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LAND USE INTERPRETATION
"" JURISDICTION: City of Aspen
APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS:
'.V11
26.710.140 D.10., Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the Commercial Core (CC) zone district;
~•• and,
26.710.150 D.10., Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the Commercial (C-1) zone district; and,
...
26.710.160. D. 10., Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the Service/CommerciaUlndustrial
(S/C/I) zone district
,~ 26.710.170. D. 10., Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the Neighborhood Commercial
(NC)zone district
-~ 26.710.180. D. 10., Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the Mined-Use (MU) zone district
,,,,, 26.710.190. D. 10., Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the Lodge (L) zone district
26.710.200. D. 10., Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone
^^ district
EFFECTIVE DATE:
October 19, 2006
_. WRITTEN BY:
APPROVED BY:
Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range
Planner
Chris Bendon,
Community Development Director
..»
'"' SUMMARY
This ordinance interpretation is being issued in response to several inquiries that staff has
entertained on how the floor azea for circulation corridors should be allocated as it relates to a
'~ building containing multiple permitted or conditional uses.
PURPOSE
The purpose of these code section interpretations is to clarify how the floor azea for circulation
••- is allocated towazds individual use categories in a Floor Area Ratio schedule when multiple use
categories shaze circulation corridors.
~- BACKGROUND
,~ A building is considered amixed-use building when it contains more than one of the following
land uses: commercial, residential, lodging, or civic. Often, a building will contain common
~' circulation corridors that serve the multiple uses. All of the cited code sections referenced in this
interpretation have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) schedule which includes a cumulative cap for the
entire parcel and individual caps for different land use categories. Therefore, it is necessary to
'"' clazify how the circulation floor area shall be allocated towazds different land use categories.
DISCUSSION
It is staffs interpretation that the total floor azea for circulation shall be allocated on a
,~ proportionate basis of the use categories outlined in the subject zone district's FAR schedule.
The gross floor azea within a building, minus circulation, shall be allocated towazds individual
'^^ use categories such as free-mazket residential, affordable housing, commercial, and etcetera, that
,,,,, are present in a building. These numbers shall then be calculated as a percent of the gross
number. A proportionate shaze of the circulation floor azea shall then be allocated towards each
"" use category.
...
For example, if a building contains 2,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor azea, 6,000 sq. ft. of free-
"' mazket residential floor azea, 1,000 sq. ft. of affordable housing floor azea, and 1,000 sq. ft of
.. circulation floor area the following allocation would apply. The gross floor azea within the
building would be 9,000 sq. ft. by subtracting the 1,000 sq. ft. of circulation floor area. Of the
"' 9,000 sq. ft., commercial accounts for 22.2% of the floor azea, free-mazket residential accounts
~.. for 66.7% of the floor azea, and the affordable housing accounts for 11.1 % of the floor azea of
the building. As such, 222 sq. ft of circulation floor azea would be allocated towards the
"" commercial floor azea, 667 sq. ft. would be allocated towards the free-market floor azea, and
-. 111 sq. ft. would be allocated towards the affordable housing floor azea.
APPEAL OF DECISION
As with any interpretation of the land use code by the Community Development Director, an
applicant has the ability to appeal this decision to the Aspen City Council. This can be done in
conjunction with a land use request before City Council or as a separate agenda item.
,, 26.316.030(A) APPEAL PROCEDURES
Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal
"" by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The
notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the City
office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the
"" date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within
_~ the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any decision
or determination.
,..
...
n.
EXHIBIT
..
MEMORANDUM
w TO: ~ Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Maureen Dobson, APCHA Director
„„ FROM: .James Lindt, Senior Planner
'"" RE: Employee Housing Mitigation- Interim policy for equating number of
employees to square footage
DATE: July 7, 2005
+~ BACKGROUND:,.
The City adopted new growth management regulations in May of 2005. In the newly
'"" adopted regulations, employee housing mitigation requirements take several different forms
.., based on what type of development is being considered. For example, the mitigation
requirements for a new mixed use development require that thirty (30) percent of the
°" additional free-mazket residential square footage. in the development be mitigated for as
,,,, affordable housing and that 60% of the additional employees generated by the new
commercial development be mitigated for. The land use code contains a chart of the number
^~ of employees that aze expected to be generated per 1,000 squaze feet of new commercial
.. space and a chart of how many FTEs are considered as housing mitigation credit in each type
of affordable housing unit (i.e. studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom) that is constructed.
~-- Therefore, determining the employee housing mitigation requirements for the commercial
component of a development is fairly simple and unchanged from the methodology that was
W used in the previous growth management code language.
~. The new growth management language does not specify how much credit in terms of square
"' footage a constructed affordable housing unit is worth in mitigating for the free mazket
,,, residential component of a mixed use development. Staff is writing this interim policy to
clarify the ambiguity in the code language that is described above. It is Staff s intention that
°~ this interim policy will eventually be incorporated into the land use code.
~~~~ INTERIM POLICY:
M- In looking at the minimum net livable squaze footage requirements for each type of
affordable housing unit as is set forth in the affordable housing guidelines, in comparison
`"" with the number of employees that aze expected to be housed per each type of AH unit (i.e.
,., studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom) as is specified in the above mentioned land use code chart, it
is appazent to Staff that approximately 400. squaze feet of an employee housing unit should
s receive housing credit for 1 full-time employee equivalent. Staff came to this conclusion by
,,,,, dividing the minimum net livable squaze footage for each type of unit (i.e. studio, 1-
bedroom, 2-bedroom) by the mitigation credit (number of employees) given as a result of
^^ constructing one such affordable housing unit. The results of this exercise are as follows:
..
...
,...
Unit Type Min. Net Livable Cat.3 & 4 Min. Net Livable/Employees
Housed
Studio 500 SF/1.25 FTEs housed 400 SF er em ]o ee
1-bedroom .700 SF/1.75 FTEs housed 400 SF er em to ee
2-bedroom 950 SF/2.25 FTEs housed 422 SF er em ]o ee
3-bedroom 1,200 SF/3 FTEs housed 400 SF er em to ee
As was mentioned previously, the pattern that is apparent based on the calculations provided
in the chart above show that the current mitigation credit requirements equal out to
•- approximately 400 square feet of housing unit per employee housed. Therefore, Staff
believes that it would be appropriate to enact an interim policy stating that 400 squaze feet of
"' affordable housing unit shall be used to equate to one full-time employee in determining the
.. required employee housing mitigation for the free-market residential component of a mixed
use development.
„~ APPROVAL:
I hereby approve this interim policy stating that 400 squaze feet of affordable housing unit
shall equate to one full-time employee in determining the required employee housing
,~„ mitigation for the free-market residential component of a mixed use development.
,..
...
date
Chris Bendon, City of Aspen Community Development Director
date
Maureen Dobson, APCHA Director
2
NAil10f61V1 . 06W 4Po16:3131. lNt1 OJ iW Wi 1MIiW3l1. 10[ 31S ^M YM'J fW q6l
[Lf1-OZ60[6 ~AVf . a65PSMOl6 Tfl . U91D OJ N3f5Y . 'fAV HAYAH 1fVf Ol9
wora~yiuuna•mmn~
S1~31/H~?Jt/ 333/NNn~ S37?/b'H~
I
4
~o
0
OOV21010~'N3dSd
3nN3i1b' SNI~IdOH 1SV3 80£'
ga ~g
~ ~ X ~ .
F ~ 5 T
~~~ ~ ~ w
~:
4
r
H
Z
Z
H
X
W
NWS[iK6lVf . 06N51ML6 ~9N1. 11191 OJ'flNYS LWIM'LS . mL 31SbY NW'! lNY W I
[SSI9W0[6 YV! . O69S5[60[6 ~91L Y91B OJ'N315Y . 'NV N9W11115V1 019
wo~•a~yiuuno•mmM
SL~31IH~?Ib' 3jl/NN(7~ S37?l!/HJ
I
4
r:
OOdNOl07'N3dSd
3/7N3ilt/ SNDIdOH 1St/3 80£
B
~ 's CV !
~ ~
~~~ ~ ~ W ~
m
~o
0